This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 13:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Sage[edit]

• Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Changed to Keep IMDb listings, list of publications, shes a "pro". notable. Hamster Sandwich 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: She does have an iMDB listing and a iafd listing. It's just not been listed on her article. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 10:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to be notable enough in her field. -- Lochaber 12:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not sure which version is supposed to resemble a diatribe. Kappa 13:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable performer in her genre. 23skidoo 14:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, 59 entries in IMD is enough for my notability criteria.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Keep, Notable performer and there are several links to her name.-7121989
• Keep and clean up. Notable performer but no need to know her shoe size. Capitalistroadster 19:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. Hall Monitor 19:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree she is notable. Many other adult actresses already on Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with that. -- Crevaner 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable porn actress. 59 movies is not many in that industry. Quale 22:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I've posted the bulk of my view below, but with regard to this particular statement I would like to say that appearing in a smaller number of more successful films (as opposed to cranking out some gonzo crap once a month) IS the main criteria for separating a notable actresses from a nobody. SteveAtlanta 17:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep because her name is one of the relatively few which can help sell an adult film or magazine. She is possibly the best-known Latina star, also is well-known in mainstream, and is sometimes seen under the Asian category. As for Quale's comment, it's a good thing that she hasn't been in more than 59 movies in so many years in the industry. Slap-em-out cheapies are the least notable and least prestigious films, and actresses who do many films a month will usually be burned-out and Not Notable within a couple of years, even if they avoid getting a drug habit. Barno 01:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She is prominent enough that porn sites mention her name in mostly anonymous sample material if that means anything. Ashmodai 08:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Notable actress. JamesBurns 09:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I cannot help but take note that every aspiring unknown actor and college garage band in North America and Europe has a Wikipedia entry, and everyone is fine with that... yet half of all adult industry articles have had Votes for Deletion or comments in the discussion tab about their lack of appropriateness. I suppose it's possible that some person or persons are devout "porn connoisseurs" and want to ensure that Wikipedia takes the most scholarly posture possible with its adult industry articles. I suspect that it's more likely, given the patterns I see, that some person or persons have trepidation about the subject matter altogether and would like to eliminate as many articles as they can manage to persuade the community to go along with. Regardless, a chief strength of Wikipedia is its documentation of popular culture... it is THE place to go for information on a person of note who is unlikely to be featured in Encarta or the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
  
  In this specific case, I find it laughable to say Adriana Sage does not meet the critera of "notable". She has been the best known and most successful Latina adult actress of the past five years, and is one of the few individuals in the industry who has risen above the sea of anonymous faces and is used to sell product based on name-recognition. I agree that this article needs improvement... starting with the removal of her "shoe size" and so forth, then proceeding with more information about her career and contract-status-slash-professional relationships. However, making such improvements is not possible until this silly round of voting is over with. Bottom line, of course this article is 100% appropriate for Wikipedia, and I would strongly suggest to anyone suspecting otherwise that they carefully review Wikipedia's deletion policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy.
  
  The community memmbers who have spoken up on this issue have voted overwhelmingly in favor of "keep". Can we please hurry up and move past this nonsense?
  
  SteveAtlanta 17:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She was one of 12 women that the UK edition of FHM presented in a booklet with the title Adult Entertainment: The Sexiest Porn Stars In The World (included with issue 02/2005) So at least she's notable according to one of the biggest men's magazines in the world. 85.166.247.58 16:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Haham hanuka 14:01, 31 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.