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. — Cirt (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Dayne

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other SNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits for either stage name. "Tart of the Year" is an employee of the month type award given by a porn mag to its models and cannot establish notability; other award nom is single-year, failing PORNBIO. Article lacks any nontrivisl, reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant notability outside her community (porn community).Curb Chain (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think notability requires mainstream coverage, as curb chain suggests. There is precedence where AVN and XBIZ coverage was enough [1] even if they may be suspiciously derived from press releases. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. That AFD is not really consistent with more recent outcomes (like this one, from last month, where the AVN/XBIZ notability issue is addressed [2]); moreover, in the AFD you cite, the article subject was a Penthouse Pet, so coverage beyond the AVN/XBIZ PR machinery existed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember only the questionable case Monika Star, no more other "outcomes", except when an article was found to be only a promotional press release (but this is a different matter)... common sense suggests analyzing case by case and only where there is suspicion that the content of an article is not true, otherwise not only WP:PORNBIO criteria (being AVN/XBIZ the main source for award nominees and winnings) but the whole WP:PORN should be questioned. --Cavarrone (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in 2009 she earned three nominations, AVN Award nomination for Best Tease Performance and two FAME Awards nominations including Favorite Female Rookie. WP:PORNBIO requires an award winning or several nominations in multiple years, criteria she doesn't fit, more famous porn actresses (with more than 11 titles in career) have been deleted for this reason. --Cavarrone (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.