Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haven (Porn Star)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haven_(Porn_Star)[edit]

While the article contains some factual content, it is generally of a superficial nature and not helpful. Also, the last clause is clearly opinon and does not belong in a factual article. The article is largely irrelevant.

  • Well, there appear to be three actresses named Haven -- [1], [2] and [3], so we may need a disambiguation page, but deletion is inappropriate just because the article is superficial. Weak keep, but extensive cleanup is necessary. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep per Zoe. 23skidoo 04:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We might as well have articles about each prop porn companies own. CalJW 08:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not noteworthy at all. Eug 10:35, 24 Novemhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=Haven+Porn&btnG=Searchber 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Particular article is superficial beyond compare and poorly written. The subject of the article is an average performer in adult films. She has not achieved crossover success, and so there is no reason to be trying to duplicated IMDB here. Further, there isn't much biography to be written about someone so young. Geogre 17:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Given that there are nearly 4.9 million Google results for Haven porn see [4] and nearly 7000 images after removing safe search, it appears that she is notable within her field. Capitalistroadster 17:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That 4.9 million is highly suspect. The very first page of that Google search contains a hit from the phrase "I haven't seen a lot of porno." I'm sure the true number is much, much lower than 4.9m. If she had a name that was not a common word (and part of a common contraction as well), this would be a lot easier. Turnstep 03:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. Turnstep 21:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the pornographic film industry is taboo, it’s actually quit large. I do not see her as being less notable then a minor character actor. The article being a stub is not a reason to delete. Seano1 23:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all porn "stars". Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another soon-to-be-forgotten actor. If she is still "acting" in ten years, we can reconsider. Denni ☯ 03:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zoe. Porn star with a large audience and name recognition. Kappa 13:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess that depends on what you see as "name recognition". Her name is certainly not a household word. Denni ☯ 01:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she has good name recognition 4.9million hits is a lot of hits so erasing this does not even make sense Yuckfoo 23:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. 46 porn movies to her "credit" on IMDB[5]. Other than quantity, however, I have no idea about notability. — RJH 01:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep masturbation fodder. 46 movies Klonimus 01:55, 28 November 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haven_(Porn_Star)&oldid=1140187878"