Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (second 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 KEEP. I'm withdrawing this. Sources and claims to notability have been added. -Docg 08:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She pretty. She's a porn star actress. She's virtually unsourced and terrible typical. I guess I know what you'd like to do to her, but I think you should delete her.--Docg 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deletean interview on a fan site and an industry report with 1 line about her that says she'll be in some movie... these are not acceptable sources. While covering porn stars and any fringe topic for that matter is something that should be done and it would be nice if Wikipedia could do, it is not currently compatible with our policies of verifiability and neutrality unless sufficient reliable sources exist. That these are less likely to exist for porn stars doesn't justify running what amounts to original opinion of fans about them alongside other factually accurate and encyclopedic articles. I will reconsider if better sources are found. --W.marsh 21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- neutral for now, source mentioned below is a start... but not sure it's enough. --W.marsh 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She recently won Front Magazine's Top 20 Girls on the web, satisfying #1 on the criteria for WP:PORNBIO. —Ocatecir Talk 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might help if the article included that info and it was verified.--Docg 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just added that 5 seconds ago.—Ocatecir Talk 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the magazine contain any actual information on her? Meeting PORNBIO doesn't really mean much if there's still no verifiable information to include in an article. --W.marsh 21:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it has a blurb, then an interview, spreading about 3 pages. [1]. —Ocatecir Talk 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I so wanted to make a comment about "spreading", but I refrained. :) Corvus cornix 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it has a blurb, then an interview, spreading about 3 pages. [1]. —Ocatecir Talk 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://jackie-cao.com/magsthumb.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, well-spread references, and hot to boot. -N 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator seems to want to delete all such porn stars from Wikipedia which would be, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this, a tragedy. Sources have been added to the article and it passes the necessary standard for such things. Nick mallory 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't.--Docg 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, decent references and after all she is a real person and can be classified into the amble "Category:Lists of porn stars", it seems that the Pat Robertsons of Wikipedia always want to delete these things. Aricci526 04:30, 24 May 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.