Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Jay

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, I guess, per WP:PORNBIO 7. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 02:26Z

Sara Jay

Subject's notability is dubious; fails to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Previously prodded and deleted, recreated some days afterwards. riana_dzasta 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability; not enough references. Only external link is to subject's own website. Walton monarchist89 12:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. There's also the link to IMDB. Is a lack of references a reason to delet an article? If so, I'd better get busy! -- Mikeblas 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Lack of references isn't a great reason to delete an article, but it certainly doesn't help us to verify notability. If you have references, that's great news. riana_dzasta 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Actually, I think lack of references isn't a valid reason at all -- not even a poor one. If it turns out that I'm wrong and it is a good reason for deletion, then we have lots of other articles to delete. Most of the PokeCruft and SimpsonsCruft here is well-referenced, but lots of other articles are poorly researched and would also have to be deleted. -- Mikeblas 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tabercil 13:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should possibly protect the page to prevent future recreation. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Agree with Joe, it should be salted. James086 ^Talk 08:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP She got an award for her ass as it says on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseacharms (talk • contribs)
- No, it doesn't say that anywhere. riana_dzasta 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it did, it was edited
- Yes, it said that in the article before it was prodded. Is there a way to recover the history of the prodded article? -- Mikeblas 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can ask an admin to undelete check the deleted revisions for you. riana_dzasta 04:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "dubious notability" is putting it mildly, fails PORNBIO ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a movie named after her,[1] so she meets WP:PORNBIO #7. -- Mikeblas 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, these aren't in the article. If you wish to edit the article to include this new information, do so by all means. An AfD doesn't mean you can't edit, it only means that somebody thinks that the article, as it currently stands, doesn't satisfy certain criteria. Please feel free to edit the article! :) Cheers, riana_dzasta 04:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added. -- Mikeblas 04:29, 13 February 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.