Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee (pornographic actress)


 * 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 Mandsford 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cherokee (pornographic actress)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no other assertion of or evidence for notability beyond an "Exotic Dancer Award" which fails the "well-known/significant" standard. No RS sourcing for any biographical information. PROD removed without explanation by IP without significant edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  -- Lear's Fool 03:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nomination. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet --  &oelig; &trade; 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A single non-unique name makes searching difficult, but I couldn't find evidence of the GNG, BASIC, or PORNBIO being met, or the WP:V requirement of reliable third-party sources for the article to exist. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - Trivial award, fails every other conceivable notability criteria. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is a successful actress and filmmaker with a long resume on IMDb. There aren't that many actresses or filmmakers with a resume like that. Even if they were all flops she's obviously generating enough money to keep her career going, and some, and that's an incredible achievement. Also suggest having the title changed to Cherokee (pornographic actress and filmmaker).  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not voting either way, but don't change the name. There is no reason to be that specific, as there is not another pornographic actress named Cherokee who is not a filmmaker that people might confuse her with. BurtAlert (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable pornographic movie performer. This isn't even a proper biography, being written around a pseudonym. Insufficient sourcing. Carrite (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement on the notability and sourcing, but for the record WP doesn't require articles on people to have the person's real name if it isn't known or isn't widely known. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is true. For a non-pornography example, see Junius. --NellieBly (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mandsford 20:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Mandsford 20:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree that there just isn't anything there to show that she meets WP:GNG. --NellieBly (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relist rationale: Although the consensus at this time would be a delete, User:Nipsonanomhmata's point about the number of films that this performer has been in, added after the first relist, should be considered. If nobody agrees, then the result would be a delete.  Mandsford 20:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A prolific career in non-notable movies does not satisfy WP:NACTOR, IMO. Also, what is the "...and filmmaker" part implying, that she is a director of porn movies?  The IMDB link does not seem to support this assertion.  Even if she was, I'm not sure that a porn director carries the same cachet as a real film director would. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Prolificness or repetition of something without recognition for that repetition are not notability criteria. Arguably that would be original research, Wikipedia recognizing her for something nobody else has.  The number of films may tend to further undermine her notability, given that an increased number of appearances would seemingly tend to increase one's chances of obtaining significant coverage, and yet for her it apparently changed nothing. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm absolutely baffled by this relist. One of the least-disputed matters in the long-running PORNBIO debates has been that a lengthy credit list is not an indicator of notability. As I recall reading, there was was a number-of-credits clause in PORNBIO, but it was removed long ago without any significant disagreement. An almost perfect example of this comes from the two Carmen Hayes AFDs, where the reversed outcome turned quite clearly on the point that, for porn performers, "Prolificness [is] not a criteria." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be baffled. If there's a consensus of some sort that has frequently arisen out of previous debates, then it would be well to note that in WP:OUTCOMES.  I'm afraid that I don't know enough about the subject to judge whether any of the films she has appeared in is an "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", let alone whether she has had a major role in any of those films, but that suggestion of stardom has been made by at least one of the participants in the discussion.  If there's nothing to back up that claim, then there's nothing to worry about. Mandsford 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus that prolificness is not a notability criterion is already indicated by it not being included in the notability guidelines. Nothing needs to be added to OUTCOMES, which is a problematic page anyway, unfortunately.  Nipsonanomhmata is welcome to post reliable sources for the claims, but "She is a successful actress and filmmaker" looks like OR and "with a long resume on IMDb" is meaningless, given that IMDb is not a RS (she may not be in all those movies, and they may not all be real movies) and given that porn performers' filmographies often include compilation tapes. And there is no notability inherent in even a reliably-sourced long resume.  "There aren't that many actresses or filmmakers with a resume like that" looks like OR, and with regard to "Even if they were all flops she's obviously generating enough money to keep her career going, and some,": we don't know how much she gets paid, or what other jobs she may have, so nothing is obvious there.  She may be continuing to work because she hasn't done well enough to leave the business. "and that's an incredible achievement" seems like OR too.  There may be honor in being an adult performer or, say, a fry cook in order to pay the bills, or if they find some personal meaning in the work, but is either notable just for reporting to work numerous times, or are they really achieving anything incredible?  The way you judge whether she's appeared in an "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" or "had a major role in any of those films" would be to find reliable sources for that.  The former doesn't grant automatic notability, and the latter doesn't at all. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2011 (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.