Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Peach (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Amber Peach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline; no relevant GNews or GBooks hits. Previously deleted via AFD, then recreated under the now-deprecated single-nomination standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Y'know what pisses me off? Wikipedia's notability rules for music make decent encyclopedic coverage of underground scenes impossible, but a dingle "starring" in the fuck-flick Butt Pirates of the Caribbean gets a page and we have a debate about it. Oh, yeah, her name is "Amber Peach." Rrrrrrrrrright. Great biography. Bottom line, so to speak: Delete. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- even worse, every single album from every major label artist gets an article even when there is little commentary, esp. outside the band fanbase, while books get far fewer articles just cause the book industry is not as relentless in its self promotion. meanwhile, every cartoon character gets its own article, every episode of every commercial tv show gets an article, and porn gets lots too. it takes actual creative work to write a book, and creative work to produce good music outside a massively funded music production system, and it take real talent to be a stage performer outside the massively funded film or pron industries. however, she is cute... anyway, if we ever decide to use realistic standards for notability, i dont think she would make it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And while I'm ranting, why is it that porn articles typically have big, hi-res color professional headshots of their subjects while I find it difficult to get an 60 year old photo of a historical figure past the Wikipedia image gatekeepers? Dear little Amber's (pro?) headshot, now in Commons, is attributed to the "creator", according to the description page. If this is so, this "biography" of this "star" [sic.] is probably advertising, pure and simple — or else the permission filed is bogus and action should be taken on that front. The double standard at Wikipedia which gives special "notability" breaks to the corporate music industry and the pornographic film industry which are denied to underground music and independent film, is extremely annoying. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- try to fix this by getting more images of underground music/independant film past the 'gatekeepers', NOT by trying to remove other pictures for fairness/consistancy's sake please. also, keep article because, and i feel a lot of wp editors miss this fact, the only way to find the article is to be searching for her name, so it's not as if it'll clutter up the place and obscure more 'notable' articles, creating a need to 'tidy' it up or anything --Arkelweis (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And while I'm ranting, why is it that porn articles typically have big, hi-res color professional headshots of their subjects while I find it difficult to get an 60 year old photo of a historical figure past the Wikipedia image gatekeepers? Dear little Amber's (pro?) headshot, now in Commons, is attributed to the "creator", according to the description page. If this is so, this "biography" of this "star" [sic.] is probably advertising, pure and simple — or else the permission filed is bogus and action should be taken on that front. The double standard at Wikipedia which gives special "notability" breaks to the corporate music industry and the pornographic film industry which are denied to underground music and independent film, is extremely annoying. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Over 100 films and a TV show. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No TV show. "Prime Time Uncensored" was, at best, a thoroughly nonnotable webcast; this is the only wikipedia article which bothers to mention it, and its lifespan seems to have a few months. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2010 (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.