Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satan's Angel


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Satan&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Utterly nonencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: subject clearly passes WP:GNG as many reliable sources included in the article indicate. I'm not sure why nom thinks this is unencyclopedic, but just in case, I'll point out that Wikipedia is not censored. Ivanvector (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Censorship isn't the issue here.  It's "in what conceivable way does this article add to Wikipedia's usefulness as an encyclopedia?"  And I can't think of a single redeeming quality for this article.  --Nlu (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for putting words in your mouth. I see it as a decent (but not great, admittedly) article about a performer with notability demonstrated by reliable sources. Passes GNG, doesn't offend WP:BLP, isn't skewed nor overtly promotional. Are you suggesting it's useless? Could you elaborate? It could be quite useful to someone researching the American burlesque industry, for example, as she's a notable performer in it. I don't understand your objection to it, I guess. Ivanvector (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's kind of one of those, "I don't know how to say it, but I know it when I see it" situations. Reading the article made me go, "OK, so she's a burlesque performer who received some coverage and was considered by some to be a pioneer, and ...?"  There is no indication here that she made any kind of lasting impact, and there is no indication here that, to be brutally honest, that she was anything but a visual plaything.  She's more notable than the usual stripper, and that's it; there's utterly no way that this article adds any value to human learning.  --Nlu (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, good deal of coverage among secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - passes WP:BASIC per sources in the article. Regarding the nomination, see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:NOTPAPER. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any deletion rationale here beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  It's a valid biography.  I'm not sure what else is needed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion offered. Clearly satisfies notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and is well sourced with reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, no valid argument for deletion. Smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cavarrone  09:25, 4 January 2014 (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.