Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lachelle Marie

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lachelle Marie

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Article has been speedy'd several times before, but I'm putting it up for AFD to try and get a decisive statement on notability at this time. Tabercil (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep AVN nominee [1][2] who meets WP:ENT [3] and common sense intent of WP:PORNBIO and has coverage in genre sources [4][5], reliability is to be considered in context to what is being sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG for me. The premise that context for pornography is an excuse to accept babepedia and foxyreviews as reliable sources is laughable. You would think that the plain meaning of criteria 2 of PORNBIO would be its common sense intent. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might you agree that porn stars rarely get mainstream coverage, and that was one of the reasons that porbio was created... to allow other considerations toward notability? And how about WP:ENT? Is it intended only for mainstream actors always in the press, or was it also designed as a means to consider possible notability for actors who might not meet GNG? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ENT can qualify non-mainstream actors, and frequently does so. Porn has its own criteria because it isn't covered by ENT. The "prolific" additional criterium is ridiculously easy to meet in porn, both by actual performances and recycling of scenes for compilations. There are a few dozen guys whose appearances are in the 700+ range. There are also a lot of women who have over a decade of consistent work, hundreds of films, but no awards or useful coverage. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the singe nomination, and no wins means article fails additional crit 1 of WP:PORNBIO. No evidence or claim for any of the others. Fails WP:GNG, nothing approaching significant coverage found on XBIZ or AVN under either of the subject's major noms de porn.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy As one nomination is suitably sourced, there is some prospect of either another nomination or award being spotted, and a reliable source found to back it up, or some other point of general interest in the press about this person (the sources highlighted above seem too weak to firmly justify these more general interest grounds). The article does fail PORNBIO as it stands but there are no contentious issues that would be a problem for userfication. Ash (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, poorly sourced; just another porn star with fake tits. Wikipedia is not a fan-wank site; we discriminate against content daily. Jack Merridew 17:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your language appears deliberately offensive. The fact this is a pornography related topic is not an excuse to vent yourself in an AfD. Ash (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG without reliable sourcing. As stated above, the idea that "reliability is to be considered in context to what is being sourced" might be considered -- and in this case it's a biography of living person which demands only high quality references. Simply because the subject is a porn star does not mean we should lower our standards of sourcing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:14, 26 February 2010 (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.