Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Reagan


 * 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   no consensus. and non emerging either StarM  04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Faye Reagan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable porn actress. No independent reliable source prove any notability per WP:PORNBIO. Seems to be WP:COPY, but I'm not sure. Tosqueira (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tosqueira (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per improvements by Epbr123. She has more than trivial coverage by AVN. Plus, I've seen her naked in person... a lot. Take that as a disclosure or just sheer bragging. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - although much improved, article still fails to state why she is notable. And no, the AVN "Fresh New faces" cover doesn't qualify under WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:N, which is better than passing WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way does she pass WP:N? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.255.198 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of the significant, reliable, independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - According to WP:N, multiple sources means that it is presumed to satisfy notability, but it is not guarantee. Still does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO which is the specific consensus about pornographic actors. Tosqueira (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend you read Notability (people). Epbr123 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did and IMO it still ain't enough. As WP:N says, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Tabercil (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I respect that opinion. What counts as "trivial" is highly subjective. But in my opinion, an entire article devoted to her, plus lesser coverage in five other articles, is more than enough to satisfy the "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" clause. Also, although I don't expect it to carry much weight until proven, she is likely to receive an AVN Award nomination in a couple of weeks. Epbr123 (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. For people trying to weasel out of WP:N, remember that Notability (people) says "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Juzhong (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epbr123 & Juzhong. Mathmo Talk 15:28, 11 November 2008 (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.