Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envy (pornographic actress) (2nd 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   delete. Skomorokh 13:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Envy (pornographic actress)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of this article clearly does not meet any of the WP:Pornbio criteria for Notability, nor is there any indication of Notability in a more generalized sense. The only source for this article is a single AVN reference to the fact she was nominated for one adult film industry award in 2001 (which is insufficient to achieve Notability). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: First nomination at Articles for deletion/Envy (pornstar) Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, that's why it didn't show up; the article was previously listed under a different name. Thanks. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails PORNBIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. please read WP:BLP before defending this article.--camr nag 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on policy, satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ENT, has appeared in over 200 productions. This trumps WP:PORNBIO which are additional critera for inclusion. Chuthya (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If one reads WP:ENT, its far from clear that any specific number of appearances in direct-to-video, out-of-print, likely unobtainable, essentially throw-away porn videos, filmed in someone's living room over the course of a six-hour production schedule, necessarily meets any of its criteria. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply By your narrow definition, yes. But WP:ENT is fairly broad and this subject would qualify to have been in several commercially produced productions. That they may be out of print is irrelevant. Many non-pornographic films are also out of print but that would not make the actors who appear in them irrelevant. Chuthya (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment then you would have to prove that she "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.--camr nag 16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There's no proof here that the subject passes any notability criteria, including WP:ENT. If proof were presented, my !vote should be discounted. -- Noroton (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete #1 of WP:ENT is about significant films. It's possible that there are sources about her, and that they just can't be located via google due to her nickname (a google book search gives a silly amounf of false positives, and adding "canada" to restrict the search gives nothing). If she's really notable then a canadian editor will have to dig up some sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:33, 17 August 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.