Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Wayland

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Philippe 01:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Wayland

Susan Wayland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unfixably badly written. Written entirely by one person, who probably has a conflict of interest. Foobaz·o< 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. While I agree that removing unencyclopedic content would leave next to nothing in the article (and it definitely needs rewriting), I don't think that's grounds for deletion; however, I have my doubts about her notability. I'm not seeing any claim that she satisfies WP:PORNBIO, but I'm not sure whether the three interviews cited demonstrate notability or not. I'm not seeing any guideline saying they do, so I'm thinking they don't. (This, I think, is a case that demonstrates the weaknesses of the Google test; I'm not wading through 66,000 porn sites to try and find reliable sources, especially considering that she doesn't get any GNews hits.) AnturiaethwrTalk 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• (Defence ) As I agree with you (even if I am the article writer) that the article requires more sources and rewriting,I totaly Disagree with you regarding notability,as Miss Wayland is not Hradcore porn actress,she is not famous among porn sites which concentrate on Sexual aspects of porn (Direct sexual connections),yet,Miss Wayland is quiet notable and famous in the genre of softcore,fashion and latex modeling ,as her cover and mag apperances sugests,she did many covers ,interviews ,modeling and advertisments in the genre of latex fashion and fetish.

I fully undersatnd that the featish and latex genres are in and of themseves are not popular,yet there is alot of people into these genres (Including me) ,and beleive me,Miss Wayland is our first or ultimatly second most famous and recognizabble face in the genre,second only to Binca Beauchamp (In my opinion she is the first but I have to respect openion of other fetish and latex fans).

So If Miss Wayland is not popular amongst hardcore fans,It is extremely famous among Latex and Fetish Fans or what is called(The sweet Porn),and the evidence is the number of covers she made for the top Magazines in the genre like (Marquis , Massad , Skin Two , Pirates and many many more)

Thanx and I hope that you will change your mind,and this will be regarded as a respect for softcore fans. And a Last word to the guy who says that I have a conflict of inerest :I am a Fan to miss Wayland,I live in Iraq and she lives in germany,I never met her,never spooke to her,not connected to her in any way,not even participated to her paysite,I am Just A Fan,and If the article is entirely written by one person,theen it is not my fault,instead of spending time siting it for deletion,you can help by refining and increasing the article,I dont own the article according to WIKI roles,so you can be helpfull and make it better lol,wright????

--Loover (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. While I believe Miss Wayland is important enough for the genre of modeling she is active in to establish notability, the text of the article calls for a huge rework and improvement. Perhaps it would be best to start with a shorter text, but with accurate encyclopedic information and style and with proper referencing. Later it would be be possible to expand the article gradually. Rikapt (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now that's a talkI totally agree with you,it is the first wiki article for me,and the article requires huge work which I will try my best to accomplish,yet no deletion,She is notable.

--Loover (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Updating content I just saw the article recommended for deletion but I think Miss Wayland is very important as a model. I've allowed myself to rewrite the old article. I hope this new article will enrich and meet Wikipedia's quality standards. --MikeJones73 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep her and Edit Like most people wrote before, she isn't into Pornography not eaven much into BDSM (new edit). She is an Latex-Model and Germany's most famous one. If my english was better, I would edit it and also upload an picture (since this is the only thing, that you need to know about an Model) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.107.212 (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment And your relationship to the author "Loover" is...? Plutonium27 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relationship I'm not sure if you was asking me but I don't know the author "Loover". Updating this article was just my intention to finish this deletion conversation and bring the article to higher quality standard. MikeJones73 (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Edited and keep Having followed Norman Richters photographic work for some time I took an interest in this page. I've had a go at editing it make it a bit more "reader friendly" whils also adding some extra credits and info to back up Susan Waylands notability as model and perfomer. Susan (aka Sway) has appeared in many notable fetish and alternative industry magazines and websites. The publications Sway has appeared in would easily equate to the more "regular" Penthouse or Playboy type magazines. As per the WB: Porn Bio thing, Sway has most definitely featured in noteable mainstream media when it comes to the main stays and big names of the fetish and latex world/industry. Magazines like Marquis and Skin Two are most assuredly major fetish magazines so Sway would quailfy under the first point with fetish falling under "as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres". I'd be hesitant to label Sway and/or Normans work as Pornographic, but fetish will more often than not be considered that way.Warped-Phot —Preceding comment was added at 12:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The edit by "Warped-Phot" is a very good improvement of my base. In my eyes it was never a question wheather Susan Wayland is noteable but the article was in poor quality. This problem is successfully solved. --MikeJones73 (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.