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. Although bulk voting does not bode well with me. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aja (pornographic actress)[edit]

Aja (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject does not even come close to meeting any of the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor is there otherwise the faintest hint of conceivable notability. The article consists of a single sentence, one reference link to something called "the internet adult film database" (in order to establish she worked in adult films), and two External Links to porn sites, one of which is a dead link. Please check out this article yourself; I defy anyone to suggest it is notable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree. --Pstanton (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (see below) All sources are trivial. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Excaliburfilms page states "Aja won Starlet of the Year awards from every major industry organization at one time or another during her stellar career." If that can be substantiated, she would meet pornbio. Looks like she was also the subject of a comic book [1] She's also been a director, for what that's worth. What's with the scornful, skeptical mention of the Internet Adult Film Database in the nom? The LukeFord link is archived [2] It states she was "1988 XRCO and AVN Starlet of the Year" and "set up her own porn company, Golden Orchid Productions." Шизомби (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like there's been a history of poor editing of the article. diff[3] removed her religion and diff[4] removed most of the bio (even though the source was given in the list of sources, just not specifically tied to each piece of information) and recent vandalism diff|[5] removed the awards. KevinOKeeffe, you might have checked this and checked internet archive for the bad Luke Ford link before nominating this, and on top of that ridiculing it... and you're running for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees?

Шизомби (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yeah, I'm running for the Board of Trustees alright, and one of the reasons I'm doing so is because I'm frankly sick and tired of this site being abused by people who think an encyclopedia ought to be employed as a repository of data on their favourite pornographic film actors. Its absolutely disgusting that we have something on the order of 1,000+ porn actor articles, when there probably aren't more than a a few dozen (and I'm being charitable with that figure) who genuinely merit authentic notability. Unfortunately, we're constrained by the present WP:Pornbio strictures, which are far, far too lenient, yet even by those grossly indulgent standards, this "Aja" person's article doesn't even come close to achieving what is presently deemed notability. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, Luke Ford is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Useful links. 86.142.164.55 (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. What 86.142.164.55 links above states "As a blog site, it cannot be used as a reliable source, except for its audio and video interviews. However, the site does provide links to some reliable sources." What is linked is a bio and printed interview, and it doesn't appear to be a blog posting. Is doubt being raised as to whether their printed interviews are reliable? As to KevinOKeefe's comment, way to make assumptions again! I'd never heard of Aja before. I was just able to easily determine that the article had been desiccated and that she meets PORNBIO as written; we can argue at PORNBIO as to whether that guideline needs improvement (I think it does). The timing of a one-time anonymous IP editor deleting on July 27 the awards that established PORNBIO (even described in the history as "(Tag: references removed)"!) and the July 28 proposal for deletion stating "The subject of this article does not appear to meet any of the criteria outlined in WP:Pornbio, nor does the subject otherwise appear to achieve notability" and the July 30 AfD emphatically stating she doesn't meet PORNBIO is mighty convenent, though not necessarily telling. Wikipedia is not censored, or anyway it's not supposed to be; I'm sorry you find it "disgusting." You might reread (at least!) WP:BEFORE (regarding the inappropriateness of your nom in this case) and WP:NOTCENSORED. If you're not willing to follow the policies and guidelines as written you might consider Conservapedia? Шизомби (talk)

• Comment Encyclopedias are not intended as storehouses for the minutiae of every minor adult film performer. Any person with a lick of common sense understands this implicitly. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were "storehouses for the minutiae of every minor adult film performer" (unless it's an encyclopedia of pornography, which Wikipedia is not). "Any person with a lick of common sense understands this implicitly."? Hmm. Шизомби (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Шизомби (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no inherent notability for strippers or performers in pornography. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:BIO through her notable awards. 86.142.164.55 (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of her AVN Award satisfying WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sails through WP:PORNBIO at the first attempt due to winning AVN Award. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on recent changes. Policy is policy. We can't go by what we wish policy was. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article can be cleaned up. It will take longer since the bulk of her film says were pre-internet. That doen not make it less noteworthy it just makes the research take longer. Web Warlock (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Three votes to Keep in thirteen minutes? Sounds like someone is violating WP:Canvassing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll venture a guess the Wikiproject notice might have brought people in. Regardless, far more than three votes to keep in thirteen minutes is hardly unheard of, and frankly that degree of involvement is desirable. It's regrettable when there is limited participation in AfDs, or when people participating have limited or no knowledge of the subject and/or have an open disdain for Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines. I'd again invite you to participate more constructively in rewriting the guideline if you can conceive of and rationally argue for something better. I am certain the current guideline is not the best possible one, and I may even agree with your suggestions. I agree with you, for example, that there are many notable crackpots who should have articles on Wikipedia, but don't. Canvassing? WP:GOODFAITH. Шизомби (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment KevinOKeeffe Please assume good faith when constructing your AfD replies. I have never been canvassed for votes in my editing life, and wouldn't pay attention to it even if I were. Thanks Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - thiese articles are beneath contempt. nnot only is theyre subject matter unnotable (not everyone in porn is famous just because they are mentieoned in a database!!! thats like saying that every actor mentioned in imdb is notable!!!!) Unless someone can find sources that are actually still alive and arent user-generated repositories or dead links that no longer link anywhere, they should be deleted. save the articles to the ones that meet WP:PORNBIO that actually have some notability outside of internet porndstar databnases. Smith Jones 15:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Easily passes PORNBIO due to the award win. I Don't Like it is not a justifiable reason for an AfD.Horrorshowj (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Suggest an administrator look into the nominator's recent pointy nominations. [6] Aside from evidence of the nominator's personal crusade, article meets basic notability requirements for inclusion. Chuthya (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Winning awards establishes notability. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO with the awards. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:PORNBIO. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, receipt of an award issued by a highly notable trade organization confers notability here just as it would for an article concerning a person not involved in the adult entertainment industry; a bare distaste for the article's subject matter does not justify the abandonment of our usual standards for inclusion. Erik9 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2009 (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.