Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney L'amour


 * 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. I'm sorry MQS but the consensus is that the sources you provided are only trivial mentions Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Courtney L'amour

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested PROD. References were added, but none to RS. Fails WP:ENT. Can find no significant independent sources to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably Delete I found a few independent websites about her,, but they don't really qualify as reliable sources. I was looking for a newspaper or magazine entertainment article about her, and I can't find one, so she probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's entertainer notability guidelines. NJ Wine (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  06:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  06:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The sourcing does not look reliable! BO ; talk 23:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing to show notability NealeFamily (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I do wish to point out that theNew Zealand Herald and Dominion Post Stuff ARE reliable sources and notability, even if only to New Zealand, is notable enough for Wikipedia. We do not expect someone to have worldwide fame if they at least be determined as having significant coverage to and in their own country. And secondly, failing WP:ENT does not mean we disregard WP:GNG. Yes, this may always be a stub or start class and yes, this brand new article has issues, but these appear addressable through regular editing and addressable issues are rarely valid cause for deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are all reliable sources, but the New Zealand Herald link appears not to be content from the newspaper, but a feed from eventfinder.co.nz, ie advertising. The other sources you give are brief mentions of L'amour in articles about Christchurch earthquake fundraising and a different burlesque performer. The last two are essentially the same article, recycled.- gadfium 08:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The publications themselves may be reliable, but the sources themselves are trivial. I had seen these before nominating for AfD. The first is merely an announcement (which is defined as trivial in the case of WP:MUSBIO), and the remaining ones only give her name in a list of other names, saying nothing about how she is notable. Michitaro (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete per nom and looks like it may be promotional. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per concerns raised by gadfium about triviality of mentions in sources and possiblity of promotion mentioned by Alan Liefting. With only brief mentions + a primary source, creation of a reliable article are zero at this time. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 06:42, 30 May 2012 (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.