Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Renee (3rd 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   keep. Mgm|(talk) 18:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Renee
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable adult film star. While Renee certainly has a large body of work, her notability is not substantiated through third-party reliable sources. In the six months since the last time that this article was up for deletion, no one has added any reliable sources to substantiate notability, which to me indicates that such notability does not exist. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 03:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant reliable coverage here. Epbr123 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus she passes WP:PORNBIO per her SIGNY Award. Epbr123 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete despite her pioneering work in bondage (for which I'm sure she should be applauded), I just don't see adequate sourcing even by our rather lax porn biography standards. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject meets the GNG or any other specialized notability guideline. The SIGNY award isn't "well-known," as required by the guideline (no GNEws hits, for example); as of right now, it isn't even in the categories of awards included in WP:PORNBIO.  One AVN article about her website doesn't meet the "multiple" requirements for coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to WP:PORNBIO criteria 1, she also passes criteria 4: "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre". Also, GNG does not require multiple sources; they are just "generally preferred". The GNG footnote states, "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." - you should therefore be arguing for the article to be merged, rather than deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep passes Crit 1 of WP:PORNBIO at minimum. Also appears to have claim for Crit 4. Horrorshowj (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Epbr123 and Horrorshowj. Lithorien (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject passes WP:PORNBIO. Click23 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 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.