Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O-Pearl (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. KrakatoaKatie 02:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O-Pearl

Verifiability and notability issues. This porn star's page was kept in an afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O-Pearl over a year ago, on the basis that it could be expanded and sourced. It is still an unsourced micro-stub. Since then, WP:PORNBIO has been developed, and I don't think she meets it, at least, not without some new information coming to light. I tried to find sources, but many of the hits were not about this person, though she does have her own website (Alexa rank 2 million plus). Mango juice^talk 17:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep meets WP:PORNBIO, Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche.. Especially since her genre is so unique. Just added citations. Valoem ^talk 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - does that source really back up the claim that she's notable within a genre? That appears to be someone's personal web site, and it doesn't talk about her pushing the genre, just that she has large, heavy piercings. Mango juice^talk 17:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certain sources are self explanatory. I believe her videos itself are notable enough because of the oddness of her genre. There are very few performer of this fetish, also people out of her field would most certainly be interested in her because of its strangeness. Keeping this article is more beneficial than harmful to Wikipedia. Just the visual appearance is enough for notability. Every genre of pornography is different, a regular performer of a common genre requires more prominent sources than a perform of such an strange genre. Valoem ^talk 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, let's see what the community thinks. Mango juice^talk 18:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the article, the discussions here and the previous nomination. She clearly owns a fetish niche. Now, if only I can find the videos on people who get off on having a car run into them. :-) And yes, this is a fetish so probably 1 film would be notable. Vegaswikian 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strange but not notable and fails wp:pornbio. There are no credible independent sources that she leads in her field or pushes the envelope. BlueValour 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Actually this passes WP:PORNBIO. Creditable indepedent sources are not a requirement in WP:PORNBIO because producing a film in itself is creditable. There is a different criteria for WP:PORNBIO which is listed on the page: An erotic actor or actress may be demonstrated as notable by meeting any one of the following criteria: 6. Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. She meets that requirement. Simpleerob 05:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:PORNBIO is only a proposed guideline, whereas WP:V is wikipedia policy. So I think even though pornbio doesn't talk about sources, we still need to have them. Mango juice^talk 12:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the reasons why WP:PORNBIO does not mention WP:V in the same manner is because the method of proving WP:V with pornographic actresses can be confirmed simply through videos and films. One can confirm that she uses the practice of extreme fetishes with piercings and weights by watching her videos. I have not found other actresses which share a similar practice. WP:PORNBIO is good for this reason. In the event of rare fetishes esp in case of a European performer it can be difficult to find other sources which mention this performer. However, she is very popular on forums and underground articles such as the ones cited. I think we should be hopeful that this article will be a vital part of Wikipedia and wait to see whether or not WP:PORNBIO passes or not because according to the proposed guidelines she is a definite keep. Also people should check other languages to see if she is mentioned. Valoem ^talk 13:34, 23 October 2006 (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.