Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Madison

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.--Carabinieri 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Madison[edit]

Nothing in her article suggests that she passes WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 18:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly she possesses impressive architecture, but if every porn star with big tits had a wiki article, the servers would be hopelessly overloaded ( as are some of the aforementioned ladies ).--Anthony.bradbury 20:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anthony. (Besides, we don't want wikipedia to increase plastic surgeons' waiting-lists.) semper fictilis 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the bit about how she's a columnist sways it towards keep for me. Dismas|^(talk) 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Somewhat agree with Dismas. But then again, does being a columnist make someone sufficiently notable? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple film appearances, two news items (just added), columnist in a major, long-running magazine and reliable sourcing. Passes WP:BIO. Dekkappai 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am willing to accept those two related news items as a piece of independent and reliable coverage. One more is needed to make it multiple coverage. Epbr123 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is this definition of "multiple" that you seem to be going by that would indicate that two is not multiple but three is? Dismas|^(talk) 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The articles are about the same event, so are not independant. WP:BIO Note 6: Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable).Epbr123 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Plus, they are press releases, not news items. Epbr123 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. Also, there is no guideline that says "multiple coverage" is three or more news items. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please answer yes or no: is anyone who has been in more than one porn film and has made two press releases and has appeared in a long-running porn mag notable? Epbr123 01:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has not appeared in requisite 75+ films, but appears to direct pornographic films as well as act in them (should probably add that to the article). However, being a big-busted regular columnist for a big-bust genre magazine would probably fit the criteria for being prolific in or contributing significantly to a specific subgenre.LaMenta3 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. Porn stars who pass our policy inclusion requirements (WP:V and so on) are no more deletable than any other valid article. Cynical 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. I see no reason to delete this article. It could be improved; but if we deleted every article that needed improving, we would be deleting a lot of Wikipedia. Acalamari 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see a reason - she doesn't pass any notability guidelines. Epbr123 09:47, 24 March 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.