Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asa Akira (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus here among the arguments that made an argument that wasn't thrown out seems to be that the sources provided were not significant enough to pass either the general notability guildeline or WP:PORNBIO. NW ( Talk ) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Asa Akira
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete non-notable (porn star) HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same reasons as first nomination.  And "non-notable" really means IDONTLIKEIT.SPNic (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I love her work. :) HyperCapitalist (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry then, but my vote still stands.SPNic (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Previous AfD established it passes notability criteria. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The previous AfD actually closed as "no consensus", which does not establish that it passed notability criteria. The guidelines at WP:PORNBIO require any of: winning a well known award, being nominated in multiple years for a well known award, being a Playboy Playmate, making unique contributions to a specific genre, or being mentioned multiple times in notable mainstream media. This person does meet any of these criteria. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Narrowly passes WP:N in my opinion. Epbr123 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO, not enough nominations or media coverage. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 01:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sorry hun, but you just don't meet WP:PORNBIO. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would starring in an AVN Editor's Choice film make her more notable: SPNic (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess you mean this link, but I still don't think this is sufficient to pass WP:N. Antipastor (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No mainstream media coverage (0 Gnews, couldn't find any other). Just an award nomination, but I also think not enough to pass WP:PORNBIO and I don't see much potential for improvement of the article at this time. Antipastor (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While WP:PORNBIO may have been changed since the last AfD, she still meets condition 5 with her appearances on Bubba the Love Sponge's show.SPNic (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO.  A single, apparently minor and undocumented role on a radio show should not be enough to satisfy the "multiple" requirements of the guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a fairly new model, and yet already has had a notable award nomination (New Starlet of the Year - XBIZ Award), and IAFD and AFDB show fairly extensive filmographies. She seems to be borderline right now, but, taking the mainstream appearance into account, shows indications of a significant career in the field in its early stage. Err on the side of more information, I say. Why waste time deleting the article when it will just have to be recreated later? Dekkappai (talk)
 * Delete. Fails PORNBIO. A single notable award nomination doesn't cut it. While she may appear to be headed toward a promising porn career, we don't go on predictions when deciding whether to keep or delete. She gets an article when she meets our inclusion standards, not before because it may save time. Lara  15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I wrote she appeared to be heading towards a significant career in the field. I didn't say she didn't yet meet our inclusion standards. She does, through multiple secondary coverage: Reviews, etc. at AVN (magazine), which I believe is considered a reliable source for coverage of the US adult entertainment industry. Dekkappai (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the only keep vote that bothered to make an argument, but it doesn't persuade me. I don't think she's got enough coverage to meet standards. You say it's borderline, I say it's not enough. Lara  21:12, 19 October 2009 (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.