Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aniyah Red

Aniyah Red was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Aniyah Red
I'm not very familiar with this kind of thing, but I suspect she isn't sufficiently notable. --fvw *  20:00, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
 * There are 27 web and 0 usenet hits for her name as a string, which is probably a bit low for a "popular... porn performer", isn't it? Delete. Samaritan 20:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikimol 22:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious ad. Wyss 23:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Vote against deletion. As long as someone can provide biographical information rather than this simple stub I'm all for the article.  Westifer
 * del Mikkalai 02:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Question it's a little hard to vote on an article that can't be seen. What was the rationale for this speedy? Wolfman 03:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I had no part in the speedy, but I imagine (and see Wyss above) the rationale was advertising/spam. It said she was a popular male-to female transsexual porn performer, gave a web site she was purportedly featured at, and added, IIRC, that she was featured at some Yahoo groups. Samaritan 04:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suspect it ought to be deleted. But still, that doesn't sound like it meets the current criteria for speedy.  Wolfman 04:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope, it wasn't a CSD. Sadly, there's a lot of non-CSD speedy deleting going on at the moment.
 * 03:35, 19 Dec 2004 User:DavidWBrooks deleted Aniyah Red (content was: ' - trivial, incomprehensible)
 * --fvw *  04:52, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
 * Actually, spam does qualify for CSD, and this was 100% in a can. Glad to see it gone. Wyss 19:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Having just reviewed policy a 2nd time, I do not notice the "spam" provision. Nor am I sure exactly how "spam" would be defined beyond containing only an external link. Could you point me to the relevant portion of policy? Wolfman 19:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wyss, you need to read the deletion policy. Spam is a candidate for VfD, not a speedy, although quite a few pages seem to get deleted by unilateralist admins who think it should be a candidate for speedy. The relevant section:

* Original research * Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases. * Vanity page * Advert or other spam * No potential to become encyclopedic * Completely idiosyncratic non-topic

Solution: List on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Dr Zen 06:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be better known as an "escort" than as an actor/actress. no evidence for notability in either profession. Wolfman 20:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. A popular porn actress that hasn't even made it to a single video yet? Maybe in the future, but not yet folks. - Andre Engels 22:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like advertising to me, see no evidence to believe she is notable beyond a very niche audience. Rje 22:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, spam, advertising, no evidence of notability presented. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with most of whats said above. &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no valid reason for deletion. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.