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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SaRenna Lee[edit]

SaRenna Lee was nominated for dleetion on 2005-08-16. The result of the prior discussion was "nomination withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaRenna Lee/2006-08-16.

Article lacks ANY verifiable information. Not ONE citation. Subject is a completely unnotable pornographic star with very internet presence other than her own pornographic website (with a completely low Alexa rating), and mirror sites. Only notability seems to be 1. Her extremely large breasts 2. Being one of the few neo-fascist big breast stars 3. Her heroin addiction, none of which qualifies her whatsoever under current AfD rules. Should be speedy deleted but I knew some would complain KingCobra666 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• delete, non-notable. yandman 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable within her genre and also is part of an ongoing WikiProject. Lack of sources is not a criteria for deletion. 23skidoo 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable personality. Fact that you've come across this page means that she is valid for wiki. thebaumer 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak< Keep. She seems to be notable in her genre, meeting WP:PORNBIO. Meanwhile, it's not true that she does not have much of an internet presence, Google returns almost 300000 hits for her name (even though she is retired, per http://www.amontillado.it/sarenna.htm]). This in itself would not be sufficient, but does cast doubt on the nomination itself. So does the nominator's contribution record, which is limited to 10 contributions, all nominating articles for deletion. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, which criteria in WP:PORNBIO (not a policy, BTW) does she satisfy? Also, Keep, per 23skidoo. Vectro 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant #6, "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche," extremely large enhancements being a very specific genre. She seems to have a very large number of appearances and covers listed in IMDb; "seems" because I'm not an expert in the genre. But if she does have an AVN award, that would be another, and I would strike the "weak" part of my keep. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AnonEMouse and 23skidoo, I trust that any remaining verifiability issues will be resolved shortly. RFerreira 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep numerous appearances in print media. Winner of an AVN award... she passes the majority of the WP:PORNBIO criteria.  ALKIVAR™ 03:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which AVN Award would that be, please? Could we have a reference or link? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if this article already passed a nomination for deletions, why again is nominated?.Kamui99 07:01, 13 October 2006 (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.