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. And recognize the good faith attempt by the author; I am willing to userfy the article for further offline development for potential inclusion in the future. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Porn actress does not appear to fulfill WP:PORNBIO -- XBIZ not listed under categories for major porn awards Editor437 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it should be noted that people find Alison Angel "worthy of notice" and "interesting" as laid out in the notability guidelines. Most importantly, these guidelines clearly state "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" and "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy". Multiple blogs, forums, and social networking sites show that she has a fan base. This, when coupled with popular reviews, shows some level of notability.

I also believe it should be taken into account that since XBIZ is already worthy of having an entry it could potentially be added to the list of acceptable sources for awards in the adult industry. I certainly think it is on par with some of the other sites listed as acceptable.

From looking at the discussion for the first and second attempts at an entry, this third version is completely different. Both discussion pages had requests to keep, modify, or weak delete. This is the third attempt for this page which I hope shows some interest amongst the community. I want to assure you that I had a valid reason to create the entry. I am not associated with the FTV site in anyway nor was I involved in the other attempted entries. My roommate is a big fan of Alison Angel and I am a fan of Wikipedia. I was so surprised that there was not an entry that I finally created a log in. I hope the entry meets the minimum standard and would be happy to see someone expand it if possible. Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete XBiz Awards are not well known and do not have independent coverage in reliable sources similar to AVN Awards. Second that amsterdam convention description as source doesn't seem reliable. I wonder if it's a mirror of a prior deleted wiki article on her. Second, outing her identity with such a source violates WP:BLP. I am challenging it and removing it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Xbiz award is second tier, not really enough to save the article. Bigger issue is that it's completely unreferenced other than the award. The only return she has under "Alison" or "Allison" Angel on either XBIZ or AVN is appearing on the nomination list for the XBIZ awards. 0 gnews hits, and I'm not seeing anything that looks like an independent reliable source on the first few pages of google returns. Coupled with this having been deleted previously, and I'm not seeing any reason for it to be kept. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, and probably several other requirements. Horrorshowj (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the general consensus is to scrap the only thing I can request is that it receives an unbiased review if sources turn up over the next year to justify a fourth attempt. To clarify, her identity wasn't "outed" by me. If you spend more than 2 minutes searching Google it will come up at sites such as myyearbook.com and this wasn't a mirror of anything. Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Alison Angel is well known in the industry. She has been awarded several positive reviews by independent critics not affiliated with FTV. For example from www.thebstporn.com and the www.rabbitsreviews.com she was given several ratings on her films that were well rated. More information regarding her professional history is well documented elsewhere and can be found with little effort thereby reflecting that she is an actress who is well established. Subsequently the existence of the page should be allowed by her tenure in industry. Additionally, since the page was not created as a marketing ploy but rather by a fan, deletion of the page should not be so quickly considered. Time should be allotted so that the page may grow and mature to reflect the addition of more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.168.219 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above. --Qwerty1234 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage or notable awards. Epbr123 (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a site with about a dozen independant reviews from other porn websites. They range from 82%-92%. Will something like this improve the entry? 08-18-08 Planet Climax 8.3 of 10 08-08-08 Adult Site Surfer 89 of 100 11-15-07 Porn Inspector 4.3 of 5 07-05-07 Elite Porn Reviews 8.9 of 10 06-01-07 Quality Amateur Paysites 89 of 100 03-27-07 TheTongue.net 89 of 100 12-11-06 Porn Billy 87.3 of 100 10-31-06 3X Explorer 84 of 100 08-14-06 What Porn Site 86.7 of 100 06-28-06 Pam's Reviews 9.2 of 10 06-09-06 Lil' Babes 8.2 of 10 01-17-06 Gottabeporn 85 of 100 Cptnono (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I also came across a review at hoes.com (less than 2nd tier site) which gives an exceptional review. It states Overall Rank: 89 of 4142 and Niche Rank: 1 of 37. I would like to add this to the entry but do not want to link to explicit material or come across like an advertisement. Any suggestions on how to work this into the entry in a way that meets standards would be appreciated. Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2008 (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.