Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Madison (2nd nomination)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Madison[edit]

~~Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO.~~ Epbr123 12:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Keep Nomination withdrawn, per AnonEMouse. Epbr123 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Runs a notable Internet site, has been featured in many magazines. I also take into account the fact this article survived a previous AFD only a few months ago, and the statements made in support then still apply now. Sometimes I wonder if those who nominate articles for AFD ever look at the previous nominations. 23skidoo 13:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how does she pass WP:PORNBIO, WP:V or WP:N? If you had read the previous nomination, you'd have noticed that I was actually quite involved with it. My arguments from that afd are still valid, and the WP:PORNBIO criteria have been modified since then. Epbr123 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in Adult Industry News, plus column in Juggs together constitute inclusion per #5 in WP:PORNBIO#Valid Criteria. Pending clean-up perhaps, which I will have a go at now. Jdcooper 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A column in Juggs is not mainstream coverage. The coverage in Adult Industry News were press releases by her company and therefore not independant sources. Epbr123 13:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides her other work, she has a column in a well known industry publication. Are we going to rehash the same AFDs every six months when the WP:PORNBIO criteria are tweaked? Perhaps Mike Royko will go up for AFD now... Dismas|^(talk) 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't part of the WP:PORNBIO criteria then, and still isn't. Juggs is barely notable, let alone its columnists. Epbr123 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable for her column in Juggs, as well as an (apparently) notable website). --Beloved freak 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:PORNBIO. Could use some more sources and some cleanup, though - but what article doesn't?. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is not notable per WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do rather better than just claim she isn't, although the fact that you have a large "Articles I Have Deleted" section on your user page almost exclusively devoted to porn stars could certainly lead someone to draw conclusions. In any event, with nearly 270,000 Google hits and over seven hundred unique hits (by contrast, "United States" has only nine hundred), Madison overwhelmingly satisfies WP:BIO's criterion of "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Chalk me up for a Strong Keep. RGTraynor 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already countered every argument here asserting her notability. To counter your's, WP:PORNBIO states "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)". Next. Epbr123 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't "countered" a thing. "No, that source doesn't count" or "No, she isn't notable" are assertions, not evidence. RGTraynor 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→Speedy Keep- apparently, only the nominator does not believe that she meets WP:PORNBIO. --Boricuaeddie 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to change my mind if someone tells me which WP:PORNBIO criteria she passes. Epbr123 21:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the community believes she is notable for her column in Juggs, as well as a notable website. Since only you disagree with the rest of the community, then this is a speedy keep. --Boricuaeddie 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the community believes that, that's fine. Having a website such as pornfidelity.com and being a columnist in a magazine such as Juggs will now have to be incorperated into the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Epbr123 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because I've read WP:PORNBIO, and aside from a lot of google hits (which are a fail), nothing passing. spazure (contribs) 09:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a few sources and expanded the article about 3-fold. There are even more to add, and there is more editing to do, but hopefully by looking at the new version people can see that there is at least the germ of something interesting here. She passes WP:N the classic way, being the subject of multiple non-trivial independent articles. Besides that, she's recently been on a non-porn national cable program. She seems to be a rather impressive internet entrepreneur, actually, some of the articles are quite interesting. Being the cousin of Janine Lindemulder, nominated for the 2007 F.A.M.E. awards, and having a rather romantic life story (well, as romantic as can lead to a porn career), aren't qualifiers, but don't hurt. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnonEMouse. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 6 August 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.