Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luci Thai


 * 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. The keep votes did not present a strong argument of notability compared to the deletes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Luci Thai

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

There is no indication the subject of this article meets the WP:Pornbio criteria for notability (a single award nomination is insufficient to achieve notability under those standards), nor do there seem to be any other indications of notability demonstrated within the article. The article is also very poorly sourced, in that virtually none of its contents are sourced; the only info that is sourced is her place of birth, and her nomination for that single award - and in the latter case, the link is dead. Furthermore, this article is distinctly vulgar and unencyclopedic in tone, littered with references to "double penetration," "double anal," "double vaginal," as well as text alluding to the relative size of the penises of the various men she's appeared with. And of course, none of this is sourced. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator is attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Evidence of the nominator's personal crusade aside, article meets basic requirements for inclusion based on WP:N and WP:ENT. WP:PORNBIO are additional critera for inclusion, not criteria for exclusion. Chuthya (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on what?  It clearly doesn't meet any of the WP:Pornbio standards.  Your argument seems to consist of the fact that its an article about someone who has appeared in a commercial adult film, and all such people are notable (since I can't conceive of any other basis upon which you could possibly claim this article is notable).  If you're going to claim an article is notable, it would be helpful if you would provide some basis for the assertion.  Could it be that no such basis exists in this case? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That characterization in inaccurate, and is an example of Chuthya failing to assume good faith.  I PRODed this article, but Chuthya removed the PROD, and suggested I take to to AfD.   Now that I have done as he suggested, he criticizes me for following his advice.  And besides, this nomination should be judged on its own merits; even if I'm the biggest jerk in the world, that doesn't make this article notable.  It clearly is not. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable per WP:PORNSTAR. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability per WP:PORNBIO.   Esradekan Gibb    "Klat" 13:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas |(talk) 13:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:PORNBIO due to fulfilling the general notability criteria. Has had a reasonable amount of coverage by AVN, an independant, reliable source. 86.142.164.55 (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I tell you the search for this was fun, plenty of material. Seriously she meets wp:pornbio (AVN nominee, etc) --J.Mundo (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A single AVN nomination doesn't meet the WP:Pornbio criteria for notability. The subject must win an award, and/or be nominated during multiple years.  One nomination, in one year, ain't notable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - One nomination in her finished career fails PORNBIO. Does not have enough coverage by reliable sources to satisfy the general notability requirements of WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Morbidthoughts hits the nail on the head. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. WP:OR: Does not present intersections of reliable independent secondary sources. Most of the information may not be from the same person. Algébrico (talk) 04:42, 10 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.