Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Fires


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Fires

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spartaz Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as fails PORNBIO & GNG... but meets WP:HOTTIE which is a keep in my book :) ... – Davey 2010 Talk 03:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously a humorous Keep which cannot be taken seriously.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we have more of such keeps :)
 * Joking around like this about a pornstar is what gets Wiki noted for being a place that's unfriendly to women. We're supposed to approach AfD with a neutral point of view, not with adolescent humor about how someone looks. This isn't the worst I've seen on a porn AfD, but its tone still isn't welcome. We're better than this. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And taking everything (like my comment above) so seriously is what makes this place so miserable.... Lighten up. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The stats log doesn't differentiate sexist adolescent humor from actual votes, and counts you as a "keep." Perhaps some people need to light up. Perhaps some people need to grow up.VanEman (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't expect anyone (admin or editor) to count my keeps...., I like to have a bit of a laugh and I'll continue with my keep !votes, Perhaps some people need to get a sense of humour instead of turning this place into the miserable shithole it's becoming (I know AFDs closed but I had no idea someone replied and plus I moved a comment down anyway). – Davey 2010 Talk 03:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, Fails PORNBIO, as NN awards necessarily fail the higher PORNBIO standard of well-known and significant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Some coverage by tabloids, several moderate award nominations, a dozen mentions (all three may indicate notability), but can't find anything more significant. Esquivalience  t 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still not better convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources to pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:BLP. Mwenzangu (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails PORNBIO and the refs aren't quite good enough for the GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with Megalibrarygirl . Lack of objectivity on a subject like this just reinforces the bad rep Wiki has for systemic bias. VanEman (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (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.