Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Dames

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Dames

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO, all but one award/nom are scene-related. No nontrivial relevant GNews or GBooks hits (but a whole batch of typos and press releases). No substantial, reliably sourced biographical content. Deprodded without comment by an IP with no edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The award isn't much but it's better then nothing →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's been in a lot of films, has the award nom and the arrest is interesting. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the above !votes provides any appropriate basis for keeping an article whose subject fails the GNG and all applicable SNGs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Has been nominated for AVN awards multiple times per WP:PORNBIO. However, there doesn't seem to be much else of note for this article. Weak Delete Only one non-scene AVN aware per WP:PORNBIO. If there were anything else that contributed to notability, I would change my opinion back to Weak Keep.Transcendence (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, per PORNBIO, "Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration", and that two of three nominations for the subject are scene categories and therefore, per PORNBIO, are not counted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one's honestly a tough call and probably in the gray area a little bit, but I don't think she quite fits the notability guidelines. Not enough notability to meet WP:PORNBIO as established earlier, and it's nice to have a stub article referenced with more than two references, but there's not enough of a body here to make use of them. Most likely, I'd say that's because there's not enough notability to have any available verifiable information to put in the body of the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 01:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO; no other notability source. I would say like User:Red Phoenix that there is "not enough of a body", though from the photo that IS a lot of body. But then again, not WP-worthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2013 (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.