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. --Coredesat 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Whoppers[edit]

No establishment of notoriety. Website has an Alexa rating of below 600,000. Only other notability is the ownership of a MySpace. Major films include "Razor Woman" and "UFO Tracker" both B-grade films with limited releases, prints lost. More big-boobcruft. I hope people can look past their prejudices towards well-endowed women and realize this stuff is completely unnotable and doesnt belong on an encyclopedia. KingCobra666 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete per nom - owning a Myspace isn't an assertion of notability. MER-C 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. I'm discovering new crufts every day... yandman 09:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. PJM 11:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Model what? as per MER-C. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable within her genre and part of an ongoing WikiProject (which I'm not involved in, I might add). 23skidoo 14:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep one of the most notable of her particular group. She meets WP:PORNBIO, not only section 6 ("Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" - very many magazine appearances and covers) but section 5 ("Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets) - including the talk shows of Montel Williams, Danny Bonaduce, and Richard Bey. [1] AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that nominator is a new user, with a total of 10 contributions, all for Articles for Deletion nominations. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yeah, it's porn-cruft but this has notability within porn. SchmuckyTheCat 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AnonEMouse and 23skidoo, possible bad faith nomination by a single purpose account to boot. After reviewing the Wikipedia Top 10 for August 2006, I am a bit bewildered by this anti-big-bust bias! RFerreira 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but possibly keep if AnonEMouse's claims can be added to the article. Vectro 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added claims to article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And so say keep. Vectro 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of the most visible actresses of the large breast porn subgenre.  ALKIVAR™ 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please she is notable in large breasted porn genre Yuckfoo 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree the article needs work and sourcing, but it meets WP:PORNBIO. Vic sinclair 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added sourcing to article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The sources adduced so far seem to be limited her own, aside from her list of appearances at IMDB. ¶ More generally, I'm puzzled by the way in which WP seems to treat seriously the biographical claims of this or that porn star(let). My utterly uneducated guess is that these people would draw a line between their professional and private lives, and would take considerable precautions to protect the latter from their ardent (and priapic) fans (who will certainly be represented among WP readers, if not editors). If this guess is correct, then the phrasing would be something like "According to the biography concocted for her, the person marketed as 'Wendy Whoppers' was born on 13 August 1970" blah blah blah. -- Hoary 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what the bases for your complaints are. Her own site is an authoritative source on relatively uncontroversial matters per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Things like her film, magazine, and television appearances are uncontroversial unless you find a source that questions them. AFDB lists 95 of her 120 films, IMDB also lists quite a few. Here is a link to a YouTube page with an clip of her on Montel Williams, likely a copyright violation, like so much on YouTube, but it is proof of her appearance. Yes, porn stars lie in their bios, but not nearly as much as the writers, lawyers, businessmen, and politicians, whose claims we also take seriously without claims contrary. Finally, the very first sentence in the article says it's her stage name, without using the unnecessary and loaded words "concocted"and "marketed"; all that is what a stage name is. We don't even do that much in the whole lead section for John Wayne, surely no less of a concocted and marketed persona. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought I'd made the bases pretty clear. Yes, I think the IMDB list of her appearances (or perhaps we should say revelations) in films, etc., would be fairly uncontroversial. It's a long list, and I imagine that it meets WP's porn notability criteria, which I have neither read nor claimed to have read (this being one reason why I haven't voted). You say: Yes, porn stars lie in their bios, but not nearly as much as the writers, lawyers, businessmen, and politicians, whose claims we also take seriously without claims contrary. This seems strange. The facts that the two groups want to advertise or obscure are likely to be very different. Politicians' addresses will be known to the mass media, the more prominent among them will get police protection. Porn stars' addresses are a different matter, and the porn cliche that the stars like to pork virtually anyone, any time is likely to inflame the passions of the dimmer readers. I find it hard to imagine that the stars would get police protection, much though they might deserve it. Politicians have to talk truthfully about their origins, academic achievements, etc.; if they don't, the opposition will pounce on the inaccuracies. By talking truthfully about her past, a porn star makes it easier for her more ardent fans to locate her in the present, which is something I imagine she's unlikely to want. Et cetera. So again, I've nothing against porn stars in general or this one in particular, and I am completely certain that this one exists -- but I've no particular reason to think their "biographical details" (other than nationality and very approximate age) are more than fiction. -- Hoary 23:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aha. I think I see your point. However, given all that, what exactly in the article do you object to? The sentence "...currently resides in Fort Lauderdale..."? I actually can't find that on her bio or other sources. Will strike. That she was born in St Louis 30 years ago? That hardly makes her easy to find now, so I would leave that in. All that said, does that weigh on the article's being deleted completely, which is what this AfD page should be about, or should we move it to the article's talk page, which should be where individual minor facts are discussed? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are very reasonable comments. I've more to say, but while I haven't decided whether or not to bother to say it (and bore you with it), this probably isn't the right place, so I'll shut up. Aside, that is, from the pithy contribution I'm about to make a short distance below. -- Hoary 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sage words of AnonEMouse. Meets multiple criteria from the relateively strict porn bio guideline. Silensor 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This athlete has indisputably been revealed in a long list of (cellophane-wrapped) material. Therefore keep. -- Hoary 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the comments made above this article meets our proposed WP:PORN BIO criteria. Yamaguchi先生 20:16, 14 October 2006
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 20:46, 16 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.