Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Rose (porn star) (3rd nomination)
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 was Delete. Nakon 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amber Rose (porn star)[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Amber Rose (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
NN pornstar. Amber Rose has been in one movie, there are no sources about the movie, and the article is supported by a very short blurb with no actual information about this person. WP:PORNBIO used to say that "niche" performers are notable, but this is not said anymore: rather, a performer is expected to be groundbreaking or especially significant in a subgenre. This article has had plenty of chances, but frankly there just aren't sources about this person enough to justify an article, so it needs to go. Mangojuicetalk 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Edison (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The Howard Stern story is here, and the NYPost reference in the article is on line, but it's not Glitches galore at Liza circus, it's Horny rose Mar. 15, 2002. It's not a very large mention, I don't think it rates a stand-alone, but it's an interesting bit in, um ... queefing lore. (I can't believe I just wrote that.) I'd merge the whole thing, with both refs, to Queef which redirects to Vaginal flatulence. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Vaginal flatulence. Epbr123 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is already a sentence in Vaginal flatulence about Amber Rose, that is currently sourced to an IMDB link to the one film. That sentence needs to be removed since it is unsupported by reliable sources in an otherwise sourced article. I can't imagine anything beyond that would need to be said. And if that sentence does get removed, we really shouldn't have a redirect. Mangojuicetalk 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The IMDB is not a reliable source for controversial information, but it is a fine source for minor technical information on a film, and it's not being used for more than showing that the film exists, date, and participants. If the film's existence is really in question, we can give links to half a dozen commercial sites that actually sell the thing, for example. The proposed merge will become 2-3 sentences, something like "VF, also called 'Queefing' has been the repeated subject of Howard Stern radio show competitions. (several refs) Amber Rose, the runner-up for one Stern show contest became the star of a series of pornographic film on the subject, Amber the Lesbian Queefer (2002), directed by Mimi Miyagi,(nypost ref)(imdb ref1) and Lesbian Queefing & Other Kinks (2003).(imdb ref2) " My Google search (actually User:AnonEMouse/MouSearch - I can recommend it :-) ) for material found Stern didn't restrict himself to that one Amber Rose show, though she was the only one that went off and made a movie series. I think the fact that VF isn't just a medical curiosity but a fetish, the subject of several high profile radio programs, and an actual pornographic film series is worth 2-3 sentences in that article, yes. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The IMDB is fair to use IMO to establish the existence of a film or its uncontroversial details. The existence of one film (or even two) with "queefing" in the title is extremely poor justification for the claim that queefing is a "subgenre" of porn (and I truly don't believe it deserves that , or the need to mention Amber Rose specifically as an example, and using the existence of one or two pornographic films to justify the claim that "queefing is erotic" is bad sourcing at best. As for the Howard Stern stuff, that might be reasonable but I'm not sure. I do know that the best way to build articles isn't to find a way to make them accommodate information that might be removed elsewhere, but to take a direct look at each article and expand it as it needs. (BTW, MouSearch is a nice tool, kudos.) Mangojuicetalk 23:07, 18 January 2008 (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.