Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Ann

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. Mailer Diablo 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Ann

NN porn actress. Fails WP:PORN BIO Dismas|^(talk) 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 13:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although I must admit the article's line "She is also planning a anal film in the near future." made me laugh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; right up there with her masterwork "Tits a Wonderful Life". Jimmy Stewart is going to rise from his grave and choke her out, I know it. RGTraynor 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, she has been in 62 videos according to Adult Film Database.com and has also appeared in magazines like Score, High Society, Penthouse, Playboy and Hustler. -- Kjkolb 17:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:PORN BIO suggests that notability requires 100 movies; 90 may still be enough, but 62 isn't. Similarly, appearance in Playboy other than as a Playmate or Penthouse other than as a Pet doesn't make it. Tevildo 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: that's a reasonable opinion. However, I would like to point out that WP:PORN BIO is only a proposed guideline. Also, I think that it is unreasonably strict compared to the treatment that non-adult actors get on AfD. An actor with only a couple of credits and an IMDb page has an excellent chance of being kept, as long as it's not for a public access show or a film that nobody has seen. -- Kjkolb 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see your point. However, the question is, when it comes down to it, "Why should she have an article when all the other porn actresses who fail WP:PORN BIO don't?". If you (or anyone else) can answer that question, with appropriate verifiable citations, then the article can stay. Until then, it should go. Tevildo 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If she's not notable per WP:PORN BIO, which is proposed, then she's even less notable per WP:BIO, which is not. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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.