Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Phoenix

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Phoenix

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

A case of too soon, I don't believe this person passes the general notability guidelines or WP:PORNBIO. Most of the sources cited just mention her briefly and do not fully support some of the assertions in the article. There seems to be some original research in the article that I wonder if the creator is somehow connected to the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your feedback, it would seem to me that WP:PORNBIO under paragraph (3.Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.) her appearance in Mainstream Films (21 and over), TV (Maury Show) and Print credits (Penthouse), and also references in Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas Weekly, Getty Images and other mainstream news sources mentioning her specifically.... would more than qualify as "featured in mainstream media". In addition, her appearance on the MGM billboard campaign, which according to the articles I have found is first ever for MGM, and it's coverage in multiple adult industry news sources would indicate to me that she more than qualifies under paragraph 3, not withstanding her other credits. I'll continue to work on the article this week while we debate here, but if it's too soon by consensus, then it's too soon. However, please don't fault me for being passionate about my point of view as I make a point to be respectful towards everyone even when debating with them. :) Art javier (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment, possible criteria to keep As a porn star, she clearly does not qualify for an article. However, she may qualify as a model and, in the future, as an author. Those who see her advertising campaign in the MGM may wonder "who the fuck is she" and then look up Wikipedia. Look into what are qualities necessary for notability for an interdisciplinary type person, not just a porn star. By labelling her as a porn star, we are being the jerks by pidgeon holing someone trying to make a non-porn career. Spevw (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spevw I'd need some guidance on that as that's a little out of my element but anyone that can point me in the direction of the right pages to study to adjust the article accordingly or can help do it themselves I'd appreciate! Art javier (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON appears to apply here. Not finding any significant coverage to warrant notability at this time per WP:GNG. If the primary editor of the article wants it can be userfied until sufficient references are found that can verify notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:TOOSOON. Andrew³²⁷ 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RightCowLeftCoast that sounds like a great idea, I'll look up how to do that and that way the material will not be lost until notability requirements are met! Art javier (talk) 19:54, 29 January 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.