Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breanne Benson


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Breanne Benson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Tagged with notability concerns. Possible failure of GNG & PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. --SulmuesLet's talk 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails each of the 4 points of PORNBIO. --SulmuesLet's talk 15:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The actress was already nominated in 2005 for an AVN Award right after she retired in 2004 after barely 2 years in business. In the middle of 2009 she came back and just 6 months later she was already featured by several sources like for example this and this in connection with advancements in 3D adult entertainement which seems about to become a new trend in that field and which very well could match point 3 of WP:PORNBIO. I found these points enough to justify the creation of an article about her. Moreover I am also convinced that the chances for her to be at least nominated a second time are very high, so also point 2 would be matched. Meanwhile serveral editors helped to get the article more neutral, encyclopedic and better referenced, this in just a few weeks. Currently she is shot (among others) for Penthouse and also appears in the latest Marc Dorcel movie which seems to get quite some coverage in French sources (e.g. here and here). As the article is not so terribly bad (i.e. compareable with some others in that category) and a lack of notabilitly is not clearly obvious, I do not see the point to already rush for deletion. The article about Jenna Jameson existed for nearly 2 years only as stub without any references, now it is a featured one. This article is only 6 weeks old and there may still be other sources that would add to notability. There were already gnews hits for her and even a small appearance in a mainstream news channel - aside from many interviews for adult news sites. Testales (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It doesn't matter if you find high the odds that she will be nominated a second time. She needs to be nominated in multiple years per point 2 of PORNBIO, so she is not notable per Wikipedia policies, as she has was nominated only once. Criterias are there to be met and she doesn't meet them. This article is just self-promoting the pornstar when she doesn't deserve to have an article. -SulmuesLet's talk 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to take it so very exactly, please also note thate it is NOT a policy but "only" a guideline (for a reason) and even a disputed one. That is quite a difference. I won't reply to the "self-promoting" argument in detail as that is very subjective and not helpful, especially as several users already edited the article in order to make it NOT promotional looking. Testales (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Virtually no BLP-reliable sourcing, either -- for example, the text accompanying a Hustler pictorial (as with most other porn mags) is typically fictive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I bascially I agree that text accompanying such pictorials is often fictive (for my defense: I took it from the predecessor of the article thinking it would be ok that way) actually only the sentence claiming her to be cheerleader in her youth is affected. Everything else should also be confirmed by the other sources which not fit your "Virtually no BLP-reliable sourcing" template. I also wonder why something apparently rather unimportant as a porn star needs to have a reference every 2 words. I think I also read here something about to prevent over-referencing and indeed most of the more "serious" (scientific/historical) articles have a much lower reference-frequency than it seems to be generally the case for porn related BLPs (and this only for about 2 years). Testales (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP. Potential harm to the reputation of living persons is considered much more significant than, say, potential harm to the reputation of molybdenum. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * keep- I think this is not promoting, serveral users edited so they where intrested!--Vinie007 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment She is the only albanian pornstar, so i don't mean she is unimportant to her job, for example: At the beginning of the year 2010 she was part of the promotion of a new 3D TV system at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas.[8] In connection with this, she appeared in several films which are among the first pornographic 3D productions. --Vinie007 10:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources fails the notability guidelines. A single award nomination fails the pornbio guidelines.  Neither keep entry addresses this adequately. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2010 (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.