Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charmane Star


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Charmane Star

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable porno actress. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - This is a tougher one. She clearly fails criterium #1 of WP:PORNBIO as she has never won an award, but as to #2-3 of WP:PORNBIO I'm not sure. I'm still inclined to say (weak) delete but the one thing that stops me fully endorsing it is her presence in a non adult movie and in that music video. I don't now exactly how big her involvement was in either the film Black Dynamite or in that music video... If it's only (very) minor, the weak delete become a full blown delete. If it is more substantial presence, it might be notable enough, and it becomes weak keep in stead of weak delete. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 16:58 CET.
 * Keep - encyclopedic. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   13:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs work, yes... but it appears this topic is covered in news and books.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article in question here. It might be a close call, but I believe that the subject here now meets the PORNBIO #3/GNG target of "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." Guy1890 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per MQS & Guy1890 - The article's not perfect but with those sources provided I'd say she passes GNG as well as PORNBIO. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:26, 9 January 2015 (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.