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 Issues of notability raised haven't been address, theres no indication that delete arguments are based on the subjects profession. Gnangarra 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for a second look at this article. It passed its first deletion discussion over a year ago with a near-unanimous keep. However Doc glasgow and I just looked at it and it appears to us that her major claims to fame are completly uncited and have remained so for ages and ages. In accordance with Biographies of living people policy these uncited elements have been removed (they're in the history if you're interested in repairing the article by finding references).

My proposal is that, if references cannot be found, we consider just deleting this article. --Tony Sidaway 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless this is imaculate by the end of the discussion. The original afd made all sorts of claims about TV fame. Well get them cited and in the article or it dies.-Doc^g 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The only citation I can turn up is the New York Times article, which merely quotes her as part of a general piece on Nevada prostitution. Google turns up 600 hits outside of Wikipedia, and I would expect more for a person with this kind of career. Hardly notable and the facts of her life aren't verifiable. I agree with the nominator that the article as it stands shouldn't be kept. Tuba mirum 16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Happened to work at a brothel that was on an HBO series. Was this person the reason behind the series? What notable things has she done while working at a brothel? That's a loaded question... :) - BierHerr 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we can delete this one with just about zero damage to the encyclopedia. This rates a "who? who cares?" on both the notability and verifiability scales - David Gerard 16:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article as it now exists does not demonstrate that the subject passes WP:PORNBIO (despite that guideline citing her as an example of someone who does). As has been stated, find and add reliable sources by the end of the AFD that prove she passes or delete the article. Otto4711 17:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She has gained legitimate notoriety because of her appearance on the HBO series. -- TrojanMan 18:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's had its chance and then some. Substantially unverifable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Irrespective of notability, most of the uncited claims that were (justifiably) clipped are sourceable to her official biography page, which also includes numerous claims about media appearances, should anyone wish to use that as a guide for finding citations.--Dhartung | Talk 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. One passing reference in NY Times does not satisfy WP:N. A sex performer whose actual identity is not disclosed. Unverified. Edison 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete a prostitute who was on HBO once? Naw, this is completely non-notable. Jmlk17 07:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, leading cast member of HBO series. [1]. Kappa 07:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with TrojanMan and Kappa's point. -- Voldemort 04:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. - No good reason to delete the article. Every vote for deletion seems to be rooted in a personal disagreement with Air Force Amy's profession. Those are biased votes. -- Freemarket 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rubbish!--Doc^g 08:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having appeared in an HBO documentary, in and of itself, does not make her notable. For all I know (from the article), she could have been interviewed for 5 seconds on that program. The NYT article is also no claim to notability: it is not about her, but rather about a possible "live entertainment" tax in Nevada. However, the two sources make the article more verifiable. --Aleph-4 10:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've seen the HBO program. She appeared in many episodes across two seasons. She was even the focus of several episodes. -- Crevaner 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this information to the article. --Aleph-4 13:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Freemarket's point about those who have voted for deletion. She's not just "a prostitute who was on HBO once." In my personal opinion the burden should be on those who vote to delete to prove their case. And they haven't. -- HowardDean 14:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You are both mistaken about the reasons advanced for deletion. She could be a traffic warden or a diet-consultant and it wouldn't make any difference to the fact that the bulk of the article was unsourced for well over a year, and was accordingly removed, and what remained wasn't really an article. Now several further statements of fact have been added to the article, but these also are unsourced. The New York Times has only this to say about the subject of this article: "We provide a service, not a commodity, said a 37-year-old who calls herself Air Force Amy and works at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch. She began her career 13 years ago after drinking a couple of wine coolers, and the rest is history, she giggled." It then reports her opinion on the constitutional validity taxation of prostitution. Notice that the NYT above only reports what she says about herself (im other words, it isn't a reliable source on even those facts) There seems to be a dearth of reliable information about Air Force Amy. --Tony Sidaway 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hey. Plenty of other articles on famous "sex workers." -- Reid1867 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Someone in the sex industry with tons of Google hits and nary a movie in sight. Vegaswikian 06:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where are all the reliable citations for the article then? The IMDB (known to be unreliable) and a brief mention-in-passing in one newspaper. Source it better or it should die.--Doc^g 07:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article now cites all of its sources, however I'm concerned it may be a perpetual stub. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has citations. -- AndrewBartlett 23:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Woo-hoo, citations. Delete. Unnotable person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per noms' point. The cited sources are ridiculous. Oh, and completely nn per wp:bio. Eusebeus 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah yeah, featured heavily in two HBO tv series = nn per wp:bio. Hah. Kappa 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kappa, as you know, I am always happy to hear from you, regardless of the context - even dismissive sarcasm. But surely you can do better than this in presenting a defense for a topic that, for those who know, is a symbol of all that is wrong with WP. I expected better. *sigh* Eusebeus 00:17, 29 April 2007 (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.