Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Jolie

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Jolie[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Has only one trivial award/nomination, by prior AFD/DRV consensus, neither the Nightmoves award nor the Urban X award makes a significant contribution to notability. A momentary appearance in a crowd scene in a low-profile music video is not a significant credit, and the bulk of the article is rather conspicuous porn-industry kayfabe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k talk 15:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article that satisfy the rules: notability (award nominations, mainstream works) and reliable sources. I'm (Cavarrone) 10:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Obviously it's not a "criteria" about notability, but it's interesting to note that there are pages about A.Jolie in Japanese, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish and Turkish Wikipedia...--Cavarrone (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article does not "satisfy the rules"; two of the three listed awards have been determined, by prior AFD/DRV consensus, to be minor awards which do not substantially contribute to notability; and momentary appearances in music videos, especially in crowd scenes, do not amount to being "featured" in notable mainstream media. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here's close to half of the "biography" we're supposed to be concerned about saving: Jolie claimed to be a vaginal virgin during her pornography career and did not have vaginal intercourse in her movies. In a March 2009 interview with Ozone magazine, she admitted that she had lost her vaginal virginity off camera.[1] She describes the experience as being horrible and hurt much worse than any time she had anal sex.[1] She claims that she will only have vaginal sex on camera once she starts a new porn website dedicated to herself.[2] Hmmm, a little advertising never hurt anyone, eh? Delete as ad spam and as an unencyclopediaworthy biographical subject. Carrite (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I quickly removed this deprecated and irrevelant part of biography.--Cavarrone (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...which leaves us of a "biography" of a stripper with a cameo appearance in a rap video and award nomination for "Best Anal Scene" in that classic of cinematography, Cum in my Booty. Not encyclopedia-worthy. Carrite (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability, no significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. --Anthem of joy (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2011 (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.