Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azlea Antistia (2nd nomination)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Argument for deletion is much stronger than opinions in favor of closure. Yanksox 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azlea Antistia

Prior AfD result was "keep". The article was subsequently deleted as a copyright violation, and then restored without copyright violative content (as far as I can see). However, as I see it, the person fails the proposed WP:PORNBIO, and there's no current guideline that makes her notable per se. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - A notable porn star. Article exists both in es.wiki (Spanish) and in pt.wiki (Portuguese). She has 76+ films. 243,000 Google results [1] and 1,290 Google Images reuslts [2]. --Haham hanuka 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep - otherwise there would be a number of adult actors/actresses which would merit deletion as well. --anonymous
Comment (negative) - The Spanish and Portugese Wiki articles are just translations of earlier versions before this one was deleted. IMDb lists only 42 films for her, probably because the others in which she "appears" (along with 15-20 other "stars") just contain clips from her other films, and do not represent any original footage. (That's why the number of films is not a criteria for porn "stars" - no way to get an accurate count of "original" footage.) She has not won any awards, or made any "unique, noteworthy contributions" to the industry ... meets none of the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. And, yes, many of the adult actors/actresses do not rate a page, but most editors have more important things to do than waste time with them. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 01:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Starring in 76 films is good enough. WP:PORNBIO (a proposal! not real policy) threshold is 100. If we delete this article we should dozens of porn stars article. --Haham hanuka 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then propose those articles for deletion. "There's an even less notable person who has an article!" is not a good defense for an article's existence. --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del she was not "starring" in these films. Mukadderat 18:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a public figure and deserves a page on wikipedia. I am learning that this guy Nlu is very quick to delete pages that he has not even read. He is a 'wikipedia deletionist' (there is a page on that, ironically, even though it violates the self-declared vandal police's anti-neologism policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.37.99 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 October 2006
Delete does not meet the "notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia" for porn stars. Then what is this discussion really about? gidonb 12:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time that the AfD was brought, WP:PORNBIO was only a proposal, not yet an official guideline. I think in light of its status change, I am hoping that the "keep" people will consider changing their minds. --Nlu (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, it is official and therefor the article should be deleted. This is not 10 movies off. gidonb 04:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) (WP:PORNBIO) guideline. The number of films criterion is in the Noting dubious methods of establishing notability section of WP:PORNBIO. Her IAFD bio lists her in 69 original films and 8 compilations; her website filmography lists her in 104 (none of which seem to be, or are identified as, compilations). She doesn't meet any of the six qualifications in the Criteria section of WP:PORNBIO. Furthermore, she most likely meets a strict interpretation of criterion # 7 in the Articles section of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As there is no assertion of her importance or significance in the article it could (should?) have been speedy deleted.—Chidom ^talk 11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real porn star. --Qwerty1234 12:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There have been many pages for porn actresses that have less overall info than Antistia. Why aren't they up for deletion? They even lack pictures and say nothing of how they have contributed to the industry.

See the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay, particularly "What about article x?":

"The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't."

In other words, just because other articles that don't meet the criteria of WP:PORNBIO haven't been nominated yet doesn't mean that they shouldn't (or won't) be.—Chidom ^talk 18:08, 2 November 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.