This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 08:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Week keep, expand, and wikify. As much as I am loathe to admit it, a Google search dismisses the non-notability claim... over 569,000 hits. The page should be cleaned up a bit, though. [1] -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Internet pornography industry has a whole sub-industry devoted to Googlebombing the names of models and actresses, and even employs Wikipedia and its sibling projects to do it (reverting bulk additions of links to pornography web sites is a common task across all projects). The Google Test is completely unreliable when it comes to Internet pornography actresses and models. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flick Shagwell and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri. Uncle G 13:12:19, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Delete. The Talk page does a great job of pointing out a serious problem with most adult star articles: verifiability. The talk page says "I grew up with her and can vouch for all the facts". Original research, not verifiable. Google test is not persuasive for porn. Normal bio criterio would be more persuasive: accomplishments, awards, recognition outside the porn world, etc. Quale 03:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite, but Keep. She is notable enough, although the article is quite lacking. Ashmodai 08:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Notable pr0n actress. JamesBurns 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has a severe verifiability problem, that is endemic to people in the pornography industry. The biographies that accompany the pictures are well-known for being made up, and, by the nature of the industry, there are often no other sources of biographical information at all. The secrecy that these people surround themselves with, as a consequence of what they do, makes them too secret for Wikipedia. Moreover, as Quale says, a pornography actress does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria for simply being a pornography actress. There is no evidence that this person has been on a magazine cover, caused a legal controversy or a scandal, starred in a mainstream film, run a major business, written a book, or been first in a field. All that we verifiably know about this person, once the "I went to school with her." information is subtracted, is her pseudonym, purported age, and job. If those alone were enough to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, everyone with a green card would qualify for a biographical article. Delete. Uncle G 13:12:19, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Keep. Famous Internet adult model. Teklund 17:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. If she is considered notable, there's going to be a thousand more "porn stars" whose bio will be up on wikipedia soon. Alex.tan 03:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Considering that there are more types of information than just the biography about such actresses and models (e.g. a filmography, a list of studios they have worked for, magazines they have appeared in, etc etc) biographical data makes up only a part of the information -- and if no (serious) biographical data is available, then we can't put any biographical data online. Besides, the private data released by porn studios about their models isn't usually much more fabricated or questionable than that released by other, non-porn, agencies -- except for the entirely fake stories you find next to girls on page 3, but everyone knows those are made up based on the photo, not the girl herself anyway (besides, they aren't intended to be taken serious) :P Ashmodai 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, do a cleanup. Pavel Vozenilek 19:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A waste of time. Never likely to be much more than a rehash of dubious publicity material. CalJW 20:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable.  Grue  05:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very notable indeed. --R.Koot 15:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. I don't see why so many porn pages that are obviously worth keeping get nominated for deletion. --Tothebarricades 03:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because I said so. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 21:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comment, for those who actually read the article before dismissing "just another porn star", you'll notice that it reconciles her fake biography, with her actual details. Most of the details are weakly 'verified' through google searches. http://www.orsm.net/archive_jul_04.php Dan wrote:Subject: Tawnee Stone's brother...Dear Orsm, I live in Crystal Lake, Illinois, USA, as does the brother of Tawnee Stone. He graduated a year before I did. A week ago, a friend and employee at Hollywood Video Rental caught him stealing 2 video games. http://www.collegeslackers.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=295&st=75 cool story.. Tawnee Stone used to serve me pancakes at IHOP in crystal lake, IL back before she became an internet whore. She graduated with some of my buddies. http://www.uselessjunk.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1130&mode=nested&order=0&thold=-1 tawnee stone from Crystal Lake South High School, Crystal Lake IL 1997-2001. I can probably dig up a yearbook pic if anyone cares. http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=24005 On another note, a few fellas at another message board that I know use to go to an IHOP in the Chicago area where none other than Tawnee Stone use to work at, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

Comment I agree with User:Sherurcij, who wrote the paragraph above. There's even more evidence still on the page called Talk:Tawnee Stone. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Haham hanuka 14:08, 31 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.