Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Scream
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandra Scream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not notable. Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for being another has-been, 15-minutes-of-infamy pornographic 'actor' and being non-notable to boot. Eddie.willers 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Tabercil 02:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failure to meet WP:ATT and WP:BIO. Edison 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple verifiable film appearances, multiple reliable sourcing. More than passes WP:ATT and WP:BIO. Dekkappai 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really want anyone whose ever been in a porno or porn mag to be included in Wikipedia? Epbr123 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Just the ones that pass WP:ATT and WP:BIO. I think its ability to provide sourced, unbiased articles on obscure, but notable, subjects is Wikipedia's greatest strength. Personally, I would be very wary of using Wikipedia as a reference source on the big subjects-- mathematics, country profiles, major historical figures, etc. First, because reliable sources on those subjects already exist in abundance. And second, because Wikipedia is, after all, the product of anonymous, uncredentialed editors, any one of whom may be a vandal or a troll. However, information on non-traditional subjects, like this article, is exactly what Wikipedia does well. Why chip away at Wikipedia's strength? Dekkappai 23:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly all porn stars have IMDb entries. It is not a criteria for notability, as stated in Wikipedia guidlines. Epbr123 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Just the ones that pass WP:ATT and WP:BIO. I think its ability to provide sourced, unbiased articles on obscure, but notable, subjects is Wikipedia's greatest strength. Personally, I would be very wary of using Wikipedia as a reference source on the big subjects-- mathematics, country profiles, major historical figures, etc. First, because reliable sources on those subjects already exist in abundance. And second, because Wikipedia is, after all, the product of anonymous, uncredentialed editors, any one of whom may be a vandal or a troll. However, information on non-traditional subjects, like this article, is exactly what Wikipedia does well. Why chip away at Wikipedia's strength? Dekkappai 23:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really want anyone whose ever been in a porno or porn mag to be included in Wikipedia? Epbr123 23:05, 20 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.