Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maxi Mounds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was - kept

[edit] Maxi Mounds

Just another porn star; just another badly written article. Sure, a lot of google hits, but internet searches are slightly weighted in favor of women who show off their large breasts. If her claim to notability is that she's had large pieces of inorganic material implanted into her (and smaller pieces of organic material inserted into her, repeatedly), well, get in line. I'm tempted to think articles like this are included solely for the external links. -R. fiend 21:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looks like a well-written stub to me. Sorry, R. fiend, but your fake boobs will only be written about when you get this popular too. If she's on the Internet Movie Database, I don't see why she shouldn't appear here too. There is no accounting for taste—and we should not account for taste. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 21:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but getting on IMDb is a lot easier than you may think. I have several friends who have their own listings, and I certainly wouldn't expect them to be in wikipedia. And look at this guy, for instance. Not really WP material. Sure Maxi Mounds might be, but I think the "good enough for IMDb is good enough for us" logic is flawed. -R. fiend 22:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, better her than Sollog. Wyss 22:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, just another pron star. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • As much as I dislike the fact that women can get this famous for augmenting their breasts to disgusting unnatural sizes and getting paid for sex (it's legal if you film it and distribute copies for profit), she does seem to be notable, if only barely so. Tentative keep. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 23:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ouch. I personally find it really disgusting, but she appears notable, in my view. Keep.--JuntungWu 01:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Porn is an enormous business, making up a large percentage of Internet hits. Its performers have a wide notoriety. A modern encyclopaedia that did not cover them in full would be deficient. Keep pornstars if they meet the same criteria as actors in straight films. Dr Zen 01:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Come on people! If you want to keep the article, great, but come up with a little better reasoning here. Appears on IMDb...better than Sollog (sure he's a complete charlatan ass, but at least his article says something other than "has big tits")...any encyclopedia that doesn't have an article on every person who's ever fucked on a guy on film is worthless... Jesus! Maybe if they meet the same criteria as regular actors they should be kept, but how many actors who have never appeared in a theatrical release (hee hee, "release") or on TV (one time guest on Jenny Jones doesn't count) get an article? No one's even started a discussion on her IMDb page. As Geogre says below, this isn't Jenna Jameson here. And is anyone slightly concerned that thousands of links to porn sites might possibly discredit wikipedia? -R. fiend 06:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Encyclopedias cover encyclopedic content. Who's Who is separate from Britanica. IMDB is separate from Wikipedia, which is not striving to be the set of all sets. While Maxi Mounds is on the edge of substantial stardom, she is at this point famous for something that she is not something she does. It is not an achievement to be 7' tall. As I've said before, Jenna Jameson is one thing, but including every woman who gets paid to have sex on camera is chasing the horizon. Geogre 01:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • By your argument we should delete Robert Pershing Wadlow. Are you going to add the VfD notice? [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 20:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Indeed, if it weren't for that pesky 3rd paragraph in the article, eh? You figure that Maxi Mounds is at the same level of fame? She's going to the White House? She's bouncing children on her knee for photo opportunities? Notice that other people with acromegaly don't have articles and that they didn't give it to themselves. Geogre 04:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • No, she is bouncing other items. (Sorry, couldn't resist that.) [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 20:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, imdb is a good indicator in most cases. This is not one of them (or two of them, depending on how you see these things) --fvw* 01:54, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
  • Keep: DCEdwards1966 04:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Duh, keep. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Duh, delete: not even a notable porn star. --Calton 16:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Please explain precisely what a "notable porn star" is, and how how you are measuring such a metric. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Duh, delete. Wikipedia is not a porn directory; the very fact that there is so much about porn on the net (and on IMDB) shows that Wikipedia doesn't need this (or its porn links). Me, I like porn, but I know better than to read encyclopedias to find it, --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are so many porn performers in the world that one must be notable apart from being a porn performer to be encyclopedic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep' Yuckfoo 07:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. chocolateboy 10:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Notable, I think. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a porn directory. --BM 19:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • delete doesn't seem notable or famous above other filmed prostitutes. Dunc|☺ 13:54, 20 Dec 2004 (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.