Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Monet (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 no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any particular agreement as to whether the sources in the article are of sufficient depth to meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Monet[edit]

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

Fails gng and pornbio, producing a documentary about porn is neither breaking through to the mainstream or multiple Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While she may not pass pornbio, she does pass the GNG. As Morbidthoughts pointed out in the first AFD, she has several pages covering her life and career (up until that time) in the book Sex Carnival (pages 59-65).1 And some more to add to that just isn't porn site interviews and such. 2,3, 4. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few page mention in a minor book is not enough to overcome failing the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was more than just a few pages, 7 pages actually. And per the GNG, that is not trivial coverage. The Vice piece wasn't exactly trivial either. It's not even a porn site. And the guidelines for pornographic actors (pornbio) isn't be all and end all for notability if the subject passes the GNG. If she weren't a porn star, I doubt there wouldn't be much of a debate if she notable enough for an article if she got this amount of coverage. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon further research, Monet has appeared in two porn related documentaries (Rated X: A Journey Through Porn and Pornstar Pets) so she could arguably pass #3 of pornbio. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Documentaries about porn aren't mainstream are they? Arguably primary sources too.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the Documentaries I just mentioned are carried on DVD by netflix and other vendors (bestbuy.com for one) that don't carry hardcore porn, so I'm guessing they don't feature explicit sex. So some may consider it mainstream. I guess opinions may vary about that though. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes the GNG per Wikiuser20102011. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 01:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to barely pass GNG, and the article could use some work. Delta13C (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2016 (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.