Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Owen


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Stacey Owen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. She has not been covered by multiple sources which are independent and reliable. Epbr123 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep She clearly has profiles at three leading sites in that sort of area (IMDb, IAFD and AFDB). This would suggest that is fulfills the criteria to that extent. δ  σ  ώ  п  ҹ  (talk) (cont)  18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO Note 3: 'Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry that does not discuss the subject in detail.' Epbr123 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those profiles actually contain anything to support the contents of this article. Indeed, as Epbr123 points out, they don't actually contain anything at all.  The IAFD profile contains "No data" in every field bar 1, for example.  Where are the sources that support what this article says about this person's career in Glasgow, for example?  Where are the multiple reliable and independent published works that document this person, enabling us to write an encyclopaedia article on xem?  There's been a request for such sources on this article's talk page since December 2006.  It's time for some evidence that such sources actually exist at all.  Uncle G 23:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO. database entries have no content. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of the article has made dozens of magazine appearances in major big-bust publications, at least four on the covers, made several video appearances, was the subject of a published interview and another article... Plus multiple sources are given at the article. Clearly a celebrity, clearly notable. Dekkappai 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Epbr123 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, yep. Criteria 4 of WP:PORNBIO clearly states ""Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" to whit, big bust. She is notably (and demonstrably) prolific in the big bust genre niche. The Kinslayer 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - A prolific Page Three girl. Appeared in multiple popular publications (including on at least 5 covers), some of them multiple times.   --Oakshade 07:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If she was notable, she would have some independent media coverage. Please read the guidelines before contributing to afd discussions.Epbr123 10:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Being obnoxious is not going to change anyones mind. The Kinslayer 12:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:CIVIL. Epbr123 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. The Kinslayer 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, per Kinslayer, that kind of attacking isn't worth responding to. --Oakshade 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject clearly satisfies criteria 4 of WP:PORNBIO: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" The Kinslayer 12:08, 22 March 2007 (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.