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. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO. The Wikipedia will have to soldier on without the star of "Big Tit Anal Whores 3". Herostratus 12:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Derek

Danielle Derek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes point #3 of WP:PORNBIO: "Performer has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche." The subject appears to be prominent in the "MILF" genre (see: List of pornographic sub-genres). Dekkappai 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to IMDb, she has appeared in two milf movies and 11 movies altogether. Not quite prolific enough. Epbr123 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number of films is irrelevant, and a quick Google search showed that she was quite prominent. Dekkappai 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google searches are irrelevent. Number of films is actually quite relevent when determining prolificness. Epbr123 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Counting Google hits is irrelevant in determining notability. Looking at pages brought up on a Google search is relevant. Or are sources disqualified if they are found through a Google search? The absurdity of your arguments in these mass-AfDs continues to be astounding. You constantly claim that a high number of films is not relevant in determining notability, and now when a subject has a low number of films, it suddenly is relevant. My search on the subject brought up many pages showing that she has a high profile and large following in the MILF genre. Her films are only one aspect of her output in that genre. She also has an online diary with many citations from other pages, photos, etc. Since the subject is outside my realm of interest, I don't plan to spend any more time researching her. My search on the subject was enough to prove to me that she's a celebrity, this is not a vanity page. Your time spent on the subject appears to be, as usual, to slap an AfD tag on the page, and put the burden of proof on those who are against censoring Wikipedia. An editor who actually cared about these subjects would put "unsourced" tags on the page, or, heaven forbid, actually try to source and improve the article himself. Instead, you waste our time. I'm done here. Dekkappai 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um...still doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. --Epbr123 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I've just noticed she's only 25. She's not even a proper MILF. Epbr123 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Does this additional reorganizing help out the genre niche?--Joelrees 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of satisfying WP:PORNBIO. Also, please note Wikipedia:Search engine test#Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography. ergot 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable. I had no idea Wikipedia even had a WP:PORNBIO! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the "Google test" could demonstrate notability for pornstars, half our articles would be on same. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let me see if I'm getting this straight... Sources found through a Google search are now invalid?... Interesting... Do we next invalidate any information found in a book if an index was used in locating that information? (As long as that information is on a subject of which we disapprove, of course.) Meanwhile, the nominating editor spews out totally unsourced articles by the score. Yes, very interesting. Why not come out and admit it? "Wikipedia is censored, by mob rule." Dekkappai 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be civil. Epbr123 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two of the Delete votes were based on the supposition that a Google-hit count was used to determine notability. Nowhere above did anyone vote to keep based on number Google hits. Doing so would be counter to WP:PORNBIO. Instead Google was used as a research tool to check whether this subject had any kind of notability. Evidence of notability within a specific genre, which is considered proof of notability at WP:PORNBIO was found. Wikipedia does not yet ban the use of Google as a research tool, though this AfD discussion appears to be attempting to set that precedent. The nominating editor refers to other editors as "nutjobs," then cites civility. His application of WP:PORNBIO appears to be just as selective and self-contradictory. Dekkappai 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've found evidence of her notability, could you please tell us what it is, rather than resorting to personal attacks? Epbr123 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to Wikipedia: 'Several of the models who have appeared in MILF Hunter have become famous as "MILF pornstars". One notable example is Vicky Vette... Other recognizable porn actresses featured on the site are... Danielle Derek' I shouldn't have let myself get sucked into looking at this page again. I don't care about the subject and apparently no one involved in editing the porn articles else does either. So there's your opportunity: Censor Wikipedia of articles on minor celebrities who don't have a currently actively-editing fan base. Anyone who wants sourced, unbiased information on this subject will have to content themselves with an article on some one-horse town in Kent. To hell with it-- censor away. Dekkappai 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry to have to say this but I wouldn't call Wikipedia a reliable source. How dare you slag off Kent! Epbr123 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dekkappai. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My !vote to delete was not "based on the supposition that a Google-hit count was used to determine notability". It was based on her not meeting WP:PORNBIO. ergot 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) ergot 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Joel —Joelrees
• Comment Disavian, Joelrees & Dekkappai have voted 'Keep' because they believe her two MILF movies prove she "has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche." Epbr123 17:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I voted keep because of her numerous appearances in MILF websites, regardless of her age--Joelrees 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dekkappai, meets and exceeds WP:MILF. RFerreira 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "WP:MILF" states that "MILF has become a much-used descriptor on the Internet for pornography sites featuring women mostly between the ages of 35 and 50." Danielle Derek does not satisfy WP:MILF as she is only 25. Epbr123 10:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This a list of some of the pornstars who have appeared in more MILF movies & websites than Danielle Derek. Should each of these be given their own article as well? Shannon Kelly, Cheyenne Hunter, Jenner, Ginger Spice, Adrianna Nicole, Vanessa Videl, Jacy Andrews, Chelsea Zinn, Emma Starr, Elle Cee, Stephanie Wylde, Devon Lee, Lauren Kain, Demi Delia, Veronica Rayne, Harley Rains, Darryl Hanah, Annie Body, India Summer, Kayla Quinn, Wendy Divine, Michelle Lay, Davia Ardell, Lexi Carrington, Kayla Cam, Puma Swede, De'Bella, Rubee Tuesday, Kelly Leigh, Nicole Moore, Phyllisha Anne. Epbr123 22:59, 9 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.