Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Milano

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. Petros471 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Milano

Person is not notable. Hong Qi Gong 14:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would not pass either Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors). Hong Qi Gong 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete porncruft. Cited sources for bio data are not reliable sources, soile reliable source (IMDB) shows a series of straight-to-video (i.e. low budget) porn flicks. No evidence of significance per any of the usually cited guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think that "straight-to-video" has any meaning when it comes to pornographic films, at least not anymore. There are very few porno theaters around these days. However, many movies have been very successful through VHS and now DVD sales. -- Kjkolb 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass the criteria of WP:PORN BIO, or even WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, she's been in at least 16 videos and has been the centerfold of a magazine. WP:PORN BIO is only a proposed guideline and is unreasonably strict compared to the treatment non-porn actors get at AfD. I would set a much higher standard of notability for both, but if we are going to let barely-notable regular actors in, we should do the same for semi-notable porn actors (relative notability being within the industry, both are less notable outside it). -- Kjkolb 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't even noticed the WP:PORN BIO discussion until recently, so I'm just going to go with concensus on that. But I don't even know why porn stars have a different test for notability. They should go through the same test as everybody else. Some porn stars are unquestionably notable and ought to stay, but if many porn stars do not pass WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO, it just reflects how notable they are in the real world. WP is not a porn directory, and the notability of porn stars should not be measured in terms of how notable they are in the porn industry. Their notability should be measured in terms of how notable they are in mainstream society. That being said, she's never won any awards, and 16 videos which your average person doesn't even know about and a spread in some random porno mag definitely does not make this particular person notable. Hong Qi Gong 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep, Brooke has been in 22 adult films and has quite a large fan following. It would be foolish to delete her Wiki entry when less notable stars have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelticJobber (talk • contribs) 04:56, 15 June 2006

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.