Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Ashley

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Ashley[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Claimed mainstream appearance is an unbilled role as an unnamed and undescribed character. PROD bulk-removed (apparently via rollback) with a null edit summary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO doesn't state that the mainstream role has to necessarily be named; sometimes actors play themselves (or fictionalized versions of themselves). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Erpert: The actual wording of PORNBIO is Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. A single unbilled role does not meet this and any plain reading would be that featured at the bare minumum means credited. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:PORNBIO. No awards and nothing that rings the WP:BASIC bell. In order to meet WP:NACTOR subject needs multiple significant roles which would strongly imply that they need to be named. Sources hugely fail WP:RS thus the article generally fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erpert. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Claimed mainstream appearance is an unbilled role as an unnamed and undescribed character. If that gets one notably a Wikipedia biography, we've got a lot of biographies of extras to start on. Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person totally fails any relevant guidelines. True, "mainstream" roles do not need to be named, per se, but Notability for actors guidelines requires 2 of them that are significant. Her role was not in any way significant, and it was just one role, not two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, here's another one (btw, who determines that that first role isn't significant?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Who determines" whether something meets the requirements of a Wikipedia guideline? Wikipedia editors do, of course. And there's a long, long series of AFD discussions concluding that roles like that one aren't significant. As to whether a show described as "similar to" Hot Babes Doing Stuff Naked is mainstream rather than softcore erotica, well . . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 18 April 2014 (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.