Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Sweet

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. Moreschi ^Talk 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Sweet

No assertion of notability for this pornstar, yet prod was removed. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO, point one: "Performer has ... or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler, ... (including feature of the month in these magazines)" I've included just the relevant points. Being a Hustler Honey would seem to meet this criteria. Dismas|^(talk) 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: even if every "feature of the month" was notable (they're not; that flaw in the criterion needs correcting), failing WP:V/WP:RS is alone sufficient to merit deletion. Valrith 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per feature of the month appearance. Although, I'm not in favour of that criteria. I doubt all the models at List of Hustler Honeys deserve their own articles. Epbr123 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability and therefore WP:PORNBIO. She hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Epbr123 11:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO. Mathmo ^Talk 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I just noticed that Hustler is listed in that WP:PORNBIO criteria, and I'm going to question it on that talk page; I don't think it should be an automatic qualifier for notability. For comparison, click these links: Playboy Playmates are always listed with name, birthdate, and a real article about their real biography. Just the appearance gives most a tremendous kickstart to their modeling career, it's seen as the pinnacle of glamour modeling. We've got an article on every one of them, and though some are short, each has some text to put into it. It's an iconic award, walk down an American street and say to a random male "Have you seen Miss March?" and they will know you mean the one in Playboy, even if they haven't bought an issue in their lives. Most of them don't go into hard core pornography. Penthouse Pets are at least always listed with a name, birthdate, and profile; it's not quite that iconic, but many on the harder core side of glamour modeling aspire to it; it was, for example, a major motivation for Jenna Jameson#Early career. A large number of them became, or already were, relatively big name porn stars. Now click on List of Hustler Honeys. Half of them are only listed by first name -- clearly these people aren't getting any major boost to their modeling career, no agent is going to be looking for "Anne" or "Amanda". Note even a number of those who did become famous used a different name for their Hustler appearance. Their profiles and names are often completely fictional, sometimes blatantly so, having no details, sometimes no resemblance to reality. If just being a Hustler Honey were a sufficient requirement for notability, we would have to keep dozens of articles about Destiny, Terri, Mia, Phoenix, and Tally with no information than "a pseudonym of a model who appeared in Hustler with a fictional back story." This is only a Weak delete because in this case she did use her most popular name, and it is a well known magazine, and she does seem to be active otherwise, so being in Hustler does help notability a bit ... but I think it should be treated as just an appearance in a men's magazine. I don't think the Honey status should be sufficient in and of itself, as what most of the keep people are saying. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After discussion on WT:PORNBIO, Hustler has been removed as a WP:PORNBIO sufficient notability criterion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:03, 3 August 2007 (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.