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.
Not notable. She may have appeared in about 76 movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. Epbr12322:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nominator has significantly edited his nominating statement. Also, according to WP:PORNBIO: "modern American heterosexual performers are usually notable if they appear in more than 75 films."
Number of films can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr12320:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean she doesn't have a website of her own? She does, it's right in the article. Not that that's sufficient, but as long as you are saying it, it may at least be true. She's also pretty prolific: 76 or 97 or whatever isn't sufficient in itself, but neither is it nothing. --AnonEMouse(squeak)
Weak Keep. She won Rookie Starlet of the Year at the 2006 F.A.M.E. Awards [1]. This looks like it's going to be a notable award, given its notable backers [2], but that was the first year it was given, so we don't have an article for it yet. She was a nominee for AVN Best New Starlet Award at AVN Awards 2007, but didn't win.[3]. That, plus the lots of films, I think is barely enough. But the article needs to say all that, which it doesn't, yet. --AnonEMouse(squeak)04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If she really won the aforementioned award and given that she has almost 100 movies on her record, i'd say she fulfills the notable criteria. Thus Keep. I agree though that all this should be mentioned in the article. -- fdewaele, 28 March 2007, 14:45.
Keep per the award information found by AnonEMouse. Otherwise, based on the # of films alone, I would have suggested deletion. I will try to add the award information to the article shortly. -- Black Falcon23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You caught me in an edit conflict ;) After writing the above comment, I noticed that it was actually just that one reviewer's "pick", so that's no longer mentioned in the article. However, I have added the first 2 sources. -- Black Falcon23:38, 28 March 2007 (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.