Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angie Savage


 * 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. Consensus determines that the article fails GNG Nakon  01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Angie Savage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod tag removed without commentary, so here we are. The subject fals to meet either the WP:GNG or the WP:PORNBIO criteria. The latter was once much looser (pun unintended) than it is now, and the subject's multiple AVN nominations and one win for a group award no longer meet the guide's criteria. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, this one would have the potential to pass WP:PORNBIO#3 and WP:NACTOR if her roles in Savage's films listed in the article, particularly The Locals and Cut, were significant and if such films (currently both red-linked) were notable. Leaning towards delete, but if such films are notable it could even be a bordline keep. Cavarrone 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. For "The Locals", the subject is in the 11th position of 12 credited cast members; IMDB doesn't even list "Cut" at all. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but the official poster for Locals (2012) lists her fourth not eleventh. We do not usually depend on the (unreliable) IMDB, which in this case lists the complete film cast alphabetically. And to expand on ... away from porn, Angie has actually had roles in many "mainstream" projects: The Family (2011) as Carmen, The Locals (2012) as named character "Bambi Lynn Taylor", Piranhaconda (2012) as named character "Debbie", Celebrity Sex Tape (2012) as named character "Anna Williams", and LizardMan: The Terror of the Swamp (2012) as "Actress" (an alphbetical cast list)... as well as mainstream television projects: Hypnotika (2013 TV movie), Monster of the Nudist Colony (2013 TV Movie), LearningTown (2013 TV series), Sexy Wives Sindrome (2011 TV movie), Busty Coeds vs. Lusty Cheerleaders  (2011 TV movie), and Hot and Mean TV series (2009-2010), among her non-hardcore porn but still quite sexy horror career. Apparently her multiple AVN 'Crossover Star of the Year' nominations and her XBIZ nomination for 'Crossover Star of the Year' were merited. Might you care to re-consider those films you did not consider and not dismiss possibly significant mainstream roles simply because her last name happens to not happen begin with an "A" or "B"?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * on that basis this is a Clare fail of PORNBIO so should be deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the comment by Tarc to which you responded was improperly researched before it was made. Care to reconsider?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do yourself a favor; unless you were in my house looking over my shoulder at the time, do not lie about my actions while filing this AfD. As stated below, routine man bites dog coverage in local sources is observed, but discounted. There wewre two articles in two local papers about a local teacher who lost a selectman election last week by 3 votes.  By the low-hanging fruit mentality of the all-but-forgotten Article Rescue Squad, he'd qualify for an article here, which is absurd.  Significant, in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources is the standard, a standard which this porn starlet does not meet. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * One need not look over a shoulder to logically determine that either research was done or it was not. If not done, then I did it and you're welcome. But if it was done, it is not a lie to logically conclude that a conscious decision must have been made to not disclose. And if research was done, there was no effort made to mention any of her non-porn work from the time after she left that industry. THAT inadvertent omission could taint an fair consideration of the topic being discussed and needed to be addressed.  So, my lengthy response above was toward a dismissive reference made toward an alphabetical cast list from an "unreliable" source... and to address anyone declaring her role as minor based upon the "unreliable" source listing her alphabetically as 11th out of 12, when the official poster lists her 4th out of 12.  And this former porn star does have the requisite significant coverage and peer recognition... but only in those genre sources deemed suitable enough for her former profession, and not suitable for the rest of the film industry.  For the disliked porn profession, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT are inexplicably and repeatedly ignored in favor of the dismantled WP:PORNBIO, and WP:GNG is ignored because the sources are porn genre media, rather than mainstream press. If the expected research was done, what was also unmentioned is that she does have the featured roles in multiple mainstream projects as required by even the dismantled PORNBIO's prong #3... often being in the first four cast being credited... in non-porn horror projects that may have the coverage to be be notable enough for articles. Their being redlinks is not automatically non-notable... redlinks simply mean an article is unwritten as of yet.
 * Personally, and specially as it causes way too many headaches and far too much dissension and drama, I think PORNBIO should be rendered historic. Actors should all be treated equally and by the same set of measures. We can and should fall back to the applicable WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO.  IF we were looking at this as a bio of a young actress and discussing only her works since 2011, and not discussing her in the context of the career she has left behind, WP:ENT might be seen as just met... and this discussion might not have become so devolved due to that former career.
 * If this is deleted, An improved article might be worth a return... an article dealing with she and her non-porn activities, rather than concentrating so heavily on her old. Thank you, 06:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - win in AVN Award. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   14:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , let's step though this very clearly & carefully. We have A) The subject won "Best All-Girl Sex Scene", and B) WP:PORNBIO Part 1 which states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration."  Can you re-evaluate A in light of B and state what policy or guideline your opinion to keep rests upon? Tarc (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he considered her multiple AVN and her XBIZ nominations for 'Crossover Star of the Year' as well-known and significant enough individual recognition to meet the criteria of the parent guideline ANYBIO prong #1. Her individual non-group recognition IS listed and sourced in the article.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps this user is a regular in porn BLPs who votes to keep with invalid rationales, de-prods with no commentary and no effort made to improve the article, and so on. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll choose to avoid WP:ADHOM speculation, thank you.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. This BLP has no verification from multiple secondary sources. Mattg82 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * it seems the nominator may not have researched properly before nominating, with PORNBIO prong #3 being met, and WP:GNG being met even in ignoring her former porn career. The article can be readdressed through regular editing to reflect her new career after leaving porn. Care to reconsider?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per PORNBIO prong #3 being met, and WP:GNG being met after she has left her former porn career. The article can be readdressed through regular editing to to de-emphasize porn and build upon her post-porn career as actress and entrepreneur.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, no; a man bites dog curiosity in a local news outlet is insufficient. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Coverage by disparate sources Patch Media-Dixon, KOVR-Sacramento and KSAZ-TV-Phoenix for something other than porn addresses any who might view pornography as her "only" sourcable career... and what you dismissed with an un-researched response to above, by her featuring in multiple mainstream films (even  ones that may be current redlinks) she meets PORNBIO prong #3... though it might be less applicable now that she is sourcable as having left that industry. As nominator, you need not agree.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails PORNBIO and other SNGs; negligible roles in minor releases, mostly softcore erotica, do not establish notability. Nor does ephemeral local news coverage for operating a fast food truck noted mainly for its double entendre slogans. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails the notability guidelines for pornography actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, PORNBIO.LM2000 (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, rational that she fails WP:GNG simply do not apply. She passes WP:PORNBIO or/and WP:NACTOR. This actress has been covered in multiple reliable independent sources. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not true, as it has already been clearly demonstrated that the subject fails the tightened pornbio guide. As for NActor, no, there are zero notable film roles.  A news-of-the-day story about her weiner business is all that there is, which is insufficient for the general notability guide. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; subject clearly fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Pax 03:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails PORNBIO and GNG with flying colours!, I won't make a remark on her looks as that would be very inappropriate wouldn't it.... – Davey 2010 Talk 20:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.