Talk:Lea De Mae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

from VfD:

Non-notable porn star. --Korath会話 07:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If what's written is true -- and I'm in no mood to google to find out (doing so might take me to places that might surprise my employer) -- she certainly had an unusual life: both dramatic and sad. And not every porn actress was in a movie apparently named after a Frank Zappa LP. Abstain for now. -- Hoary 08:48, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's absolutely true. I've also wikified, expanded and referenced the article. A typical example of a "if I've not heard of he/she/it, it can't be notable" VfD nomination. Dan100 10:21, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 11:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a bit stubby yet, but definitely worth keeping. iMeowbot~Mw 12:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination. I had been able to confirm the brain tumor but not the spinal injury after (admittedly brief) googling. Can the {{vfd}} be removed from the article, or must it remain the full five days? —Korath会話 12:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I have removed the tag. Dan100 12:58, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • And I've reinstated it. Votes for and against deletion are still invited. I understand that Korath nominated this for deletion and then changed his/her mind, and I sympathize with a desire for removal of the tag, but Geogre (for example) voted for deletion even after learning more. (As for me, I still abstain.) -- Hoary 01:43, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'd still vote delete. 1. 80 films is a small number by porn actress standards. 2. That she had trained for the team prior is not notable. 3. That she documented her death is not unique, nor has this documentation been popular enough to be unique. 4. The memorial is inappropriate for Wikipedia. 5. Porn actresses, like minor league baseball players, are numerous as the sands on the beach, and we really ought to be asking for secondary notability prior to assuming them to be encyclopedic. Geogre 13:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Notability (or lack of) is not grounds for deletion. Check Wikipedia:Deletion policy and m:Wiki is not paper for more. Dan100 14:39, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Um, yeah, it basically is--check Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not #17. (or more specificallyWikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#What_Wikipedia_articles_are_not) Niteowlneils 16:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"17. ...Biography articles should only be given for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (either online or offline)." Lea De Mae fufills that criteria. Dan100 16:37, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Note: 1. 80 films is not a large number. 2. Training for a team is commonplace. 3. Dying is compulsory. 4. Documenting her illness is not substantially new or isolated. Therefore, what sets this person apart from all others? The mere combination of these commonplace things with a single relatively uncommon one, or your own interest in her? Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and Wikipedia is not here to serve the private interests of authors. If you must misrepresent my voting rationale as "oooh, you used the word notability, and I know what to say to that," then go ahead, but that is neither what I said nor have you made a persuasive argument that this particular actress is an encyclopedic subject. Further, merely being mentioned multiple places alone is by no means enough to make anyone or anything encyclopedic. Were that to be the case, then Wikipedia would simply be Lexis/Nexus, repeating newspapers. A biography of a person who is notable is acceptable: the mouth breathing recitation of an adult actress's demise is not unless there is note to that life above the average. Geogre 20:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable for inclusion. --JuntungWu 15:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would say that the combination of international athlete and porn star is unusual enough to merit an entry. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 03:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps the athletics and the porn actress parts separately aren't enough for inclusion, but the combination is, in my opinion. - Andre Engels 15:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete tinged with a certain regret. The athletic career certainly isn't enough, and the porn actress career doesn't seem to be either, though I'll admit that I'm not entirely confident of what criteria to set for the latter. The death was horrible, the diary admirably written -- but they too don't establish notability. What might be worth merging somewhere is this life-story as evidence for an overlap between athleticism and porn "acting" (performance): it's something that has sometimes been pointed out (e.g. in one of A A Gill's essays in A A Gill Is Away) but it's too easily dismissed by the power of righteous indignation and received wisdom. -- Hoary 01:48, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis that there are a number of articles on porn actors already, some of whom have far less notoriety than this one. Delete one, you pretty much have to delete them all IMO; this one at least has a bit of newsworthiness about it. 23skidoo 06:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not believe she meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia is neither a news site nor a memorial. Delete. Rossami (talk) 06:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 10:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that a Czech check would be useful. If this was well-known as a human interest story over there, I would vote keep. If not, then it's just a memorial. Perhaps someone could consult with the Czech Wikipedia? Isomorphic 10:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable porn star. GRider\talk 18:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep because there is no harm in keeping it. It is information. This information could be usable to someone. To me the only question is accuracy. If the information is accurate, and it isn't invading anyone's privacy, I can see no good reason to delete it. The only unacceptable information is that which is untrue.
  • Keep Notable. Her fate is a unique combination of tragedy and heroism; a Czech search (lidovky.cz) yielded an article on a modeling job from 1999 under her real name with no mention of porn or her later pseudonym. Her athletic achievements which included several Czech championships and a bronze medal at the European Championships ought to be mentioned more prominently GS 12:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The individual elements of her life history are not notable by themselves, but in combination, I would say that they merit some notoriety. The addition of the diary is further notable as a poignant written record of an illness; similar poignancy in the face of death has been noted by Wikipedia in the past. - Scooter 15:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

endmoved discussion