Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Ann


 * 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 afraid that i'm not buying the idea that appearing in a skin mag is reliable sourcing..... Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lilly Ann

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * heres my best shot at refs (iafd just duplicated, though). doesnt penthouse pet qualify as notable?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to appropriate Penthouse pet of the month article until enough independent sources justify stand-alone article. -- Banj e  b oi   13:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough. Just the amount of incoming links from other articles should be enough to keep. And WP:PORNBIO really should include Penthouse Pets along with Playboy Playmates. Why not have an article for every pet listed in the list? And the template. We should be making all those red links blue instead of deleting because of some disputed guideline, emphasis on the guideline. I've seen so many notable porn actresses deleted already mostly due to ignorance of the industry, and from what I perceive suspiciously as an effort by some editors to 'clean' Wikipedia of the 'smut'. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG Through appearances in Penthouse, Hustler, Barely Legal, and Club (magazine). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, appearing in a magazine pictorial is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, regardless of how many user talk pages or other porn actress pages link to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects, if the article meets WP:GNG, not meeting WP:PORNBIO does not matter. Each guideline acts as seperate but related ways to gauge inclusion notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain how Penthouse, Hustler, Barely Legal, and Club (magazine) are independent, reliable sources. Epbr123 (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per guideline, sources are to be considered in context to what is being sourced. Washington Post does not report on adult industry stars. Hustler does not report on international politics. WP:RS specifically states "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." If the context is an adult star, then such a publication may be considered acceptable "as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that no-one here has access to what these magazines have actually written about her (probably insignificant trivia, if anything), she isn't independent of the magazines as she models for them. Also, I suspect few others would agree with your view that porn magazines are trustworthy or authoritative. Epbr123 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That you assert as "fact" that no one reading Wikipedia has access to the magazines in question does not make them non-existant, nor make your assertion true. Your then supposition as to their content is pure speculation. Please do not twist my words.  My statement is that an adult magazine might be considered as trustworthy and authoritative in relationship to the subject at hand. I am not declaring adult magazines as authoritative on world politics.  I am not declaring Washington Post as authoritative on adult entertainers. Again, guideline instructs sources be considered in context to what is being asserted.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Their reliability is besides the point anyways, his keep rationale was that she made appearances in Penthouse, Hustler, Barely Legal, and Club (magazine)s, which are all highly notable magazines in the adult industry context. Modeling for the magazine has no bearing on the reliability of the magazine. Reliable by whose terms? Yours? are you in the adult industry? How would you know what's considered trustworthy or authoritative in the adult industry? -- &oelig; &trade; 00:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources noticeboard grants that Penthouse, Playboy, and Hustler are reliable sources for adult entertainmant and may be used to meet WP:GNG, as guidelines other than WP:PORNBIO are allowed to be considered.  WP:PORNBIO is not a limitation toward notability, only an additional tool for determination of such. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'nuff said. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:06, 24 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.