Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber, The Lesbian Queefer

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 delete. Kimchi.sg 16:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber, The Lesbian Queefer[edit]

Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in principle. Normally, I don’t care if an article on a pornographic movie/actor/actress/whatever survives or fails an AfD nomination. However, the nomination for this and the other pornography-related articles by this editor does not provide any substantive reasoning to support the allegation of insufficient notability. As a result, I am left to make assumptions, and the assumption I make is that the nomination is in some way related to censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. Even if I assume good faith, notability is a concern for any article, but it is not the sole criterion. Wikipedia:Notability is not policy or a guideline. The real question is: "is it encyclopedic?" Based upon WP:5P and WP:NOT, this article may very well be. Without any other reason, I cannot support deletion. Agent 86 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike has nominated several films today and as far as I can tell, maybe half were pornographic; so your assumption would appear to be erroneous.--Isotope23 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cast fails WP:PORN BIO -- GWO
Very, very weak keep per Agent 86. --Coredesat 10:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn porn film with nn porn cast. Try a ref at Vaginal flatulence#Pornography. Deizio talk 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The director recently entered the race for Governor of Nevada. Adds to notability.Jim Miller 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GWO. Entering the race for governor doesn't make your previous films notable...--Isotope23 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. —Centrx→talk 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
Delete as per above ---CH 00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Cast fails WP:PORN BIO (I know that's only a proposed guideline, but star also fails WP:BIO and film itself is otherwise non-notable.) --Satori Son 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --JJay 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnotable. —Xezbeth 20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, cast fails WP:BIO/WP:PORN BIO. --Coredesat 03:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopelessly non-notable, while it's too early to treat WP:PORN as policy, this surely would fail pretty much any criteria we could reasonably put to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.