Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of murdered porn stars

This entry consists of a list of twelve names, stated to be those of murdered porn stars, with each name a redlink. It's got a threadbare and depressing history tab. Four people have touched the page since the day it was created on 15 Feb 2004, three of them only in order to put up or remove templates: first an immediate listing on VfD, a little later a removal of the VfD template, then on 11 Aug a slapping-on of a Cleanup Leftover template. (A little odd, that: why is there no record of a previous regular Cleanup template?) Only on 21 June did one person add actual material to what had originally been purely a list of names, namely the date of demise of each person except one, and the murder method for six of them. Before then, and since then, nobody has been attracted by the idea of trying to improve it, and now it's officially a Cleanup Leftover. Did it really survive VfD in February? Can we put it out of its misery now? (Or do you want to work on it?) Bishonen 20:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. A pointless list displaying, like the others, a twisted fascination of their creator.  &mdash;Morven 20:44, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is how, given the archived results at Talk:List of dead porn stars, these weren't deleted last time. Clear consensus for deletion. &mdash;Morven 20:49, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete them all. If they really need to be preserved, merge everything into a list of Dead porn stars, and categorise by cause of death within the article. But I'd be happy to see this all gone - do we really need this list. Who is actually going to use it? Darksun 21:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: If List of dead porn stars is still here after failing VfD, that's easy to fix.  This one's going to fail, too.  Geogre 00:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Been on Cleanup (and then in Cleanup Leftovers) for what, six months? Ambi 00:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this (and its relatives) in their present form. The site it links to is probably worth a link from somewhere else in wikipedia if it hasn't already got one, but these articles add nothing to the page they reference. I haven't worked in porn-related topics, so I have little idea what would be the appropriate article to acquire the link, but I'm sure there is something. -- Jmabel 02:26, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fire Star 05:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Shows the hazards of the profession (or at least it could if someone got around to --pardon the pun-- flesh out the article a bit and show connections (if any) b/w profession and motive. The time since edit strikes me as a very weak arg. for deletion. Wikipedia is not paper; someone may get around to filling it out, but likely only if this stub remains. Would repeat this arg. below on the other VfD's for suicide and for HIV, too. Not anti-porn, but it must get you mixed up with some unsavoury types. Klanda | Talk 06:09, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble to write a careful motivation! I was afraid this would be one of those items where I can't figure out why anybody would want something kept, and still there will be these one-word "Keep" votes. (It's absolutely legitimate to post such votes, I don't mean anything else, it's just a personal thing: I hate to be so mystified.) I'd like to ask, though: since nobody wanted to improve/expand it all the time it was on Cleanup, isn't it even less likely that they'd get the urge once it's off Cleanup? Did I mention it's been six months? Bishonen 13:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, six months is an epoch in the life of the internet, but it's a blink in the life of an encyclopedia. Moreover, new Wikipedians are joining every day. It only takes one to stumble across an article and improve it, and just because it hasn't happened in six months, doesn't mean it won't. We should be building an encyclopedia with the expectation that it will carry well into the future. (Thanks for the kind words, by the way.) Klanda | Talk 14:03, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but more people also come looking for information on Wikipedia every day. It was the thought of those people stumbling over the articles that made me work up enough steam to list them. Also, I think the articles are hopelessly misconceived. It's not the stubbiness or the lack of bluelinks or the inaccuracies that are the big problem, IMHO. It's the idea, as set fort in the titles. Bishonen 14:27, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting if depressing, but it's red links all the way down. Neutral. Add the external link to list of porn stars if consensus to delete is reached. -Sean Curtin 08:07, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should keep it simply because I can think of no place other than Wikipedia to find information like this, in collected form. Yes, googling will find me information about the deaths of individual porn stars, but where else am I going to find a list? In might find an article (or blog entry) about deaths in the porn industry, but anything I found would likely be out of date. This rarity makes it useful for anyone doing research into, or curious about, well, porn star deaths. Ok, there is this page: http://models.badpuppy.com/archive/charon.htm and maybe it invalidates my argument, but still, this seems vaguely useful to have this here as well. -- orthogonal 07:08, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * orthogonal, you make a jest of my appetite for "Keep" explanations (see above). Well taken. Bishonen 09:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Who can verify this? Mandel 13:22, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Gary D 18:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)