Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Byrne


 * 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. m.o.p 23:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine Byrne

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject appears to fail both GNG & PORNBIO. Can't find significant third party coverage and she appears to only have been nominated for awards and never winning any. JoshyDinda (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Got a brief flutter of notice for making a Jennifer Lopez take-off porno. Other than that, stray mentions, PR, & sales sites. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes PORNBIO with multiple years of AVN nominations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Morbidthoughts. Dismas |(talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes WP:PORNBIO#2 as WP:ANYBIO#1. Long series of XRCO & AVN noms includig noms in two significant categories like "Best New Starlet" and "Performer of the Year".--Cavarrone (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG and PORNBIO.--Cox wasan (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems you haven't read PORNBIO.--Cavarrone (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Whatever I personally think of the pornbio standards, they have the support of the community, and the article clearly meets them. Anyone nominating or supporting deletion for this has clearly not read them; some basic knowledge needs to be seen as a prerequisite to making intelligent comments here, otherwise AfD becomes I like it/ I don't like it.   DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply. I cannot speak on behalf of anyone else, but I did read the pornbio standards, before voting to delete. I've also read the introductory bit at the top of the WP:BIO page where it says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I looked at the evidence offered in the article and from my own searches and concluded that, on balance, this subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia entry. For what it's worth, I do believe that there are plenty of porn stars who do belong in WP. This person is not one of them. If my vote and comments are not merely disagreeable to you, but also unintelligent, well, I do apologize. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think DGG was mainly referring to Cox wasan and to the nom. It is legitimate to think that a subject isn't sufficiently notable to be in WP, despite like in this case he/she passes SNG-criteria and has some (sporadic) secondary coverage. I consider that as WP:IDONTLIKE, but your comment correctly explained this POV. It is "unintelligent" saying, as the nom says, that a subject fails pornbio as "she appears to only have been nominated for awards and never winning any", it demonstrate he has not read PORNBIO. And it is even more "unintelligent", after three users noticed how the subject effectively passes this SNG, saying "Fails GNG and PORNBIO" without any reason, explanation or comment given.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, I apologize for my wording, because I was chiefly thinking on the nom.  DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:PORNBIO. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:23, 29 November 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.