Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis DeVell
Source: 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 as failing WP:PORNBIO. Arguments for keeping did not provide any reliable sources showing notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexis DeVell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not notable. According to IMDb, she has appeared in 50 porn movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. She has appeared in a few porn magazines, but again that doesn't really make someone notable. Epbr123 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looking at WP:PORNBIO, she doesn't seem to be notable. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if the best that the author can do is cite her apparently out-of-proportion-to-the-rest-of-her-body-sized chest as a criteria for notability. Pat Payne 20:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dozens of video appearances, writing and production credits, published interview, multiple magazine layouts, magazine cover, appearance at AVN Awards... Notable. Dekkappai 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She might be notable if she had won an AVN award. The article has no reliable sources and there is no indication provided that she passes PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dekkappai. Multiple magazine features including a cover satisfies WP:BIO and suggests a significant fanbase. LaMenta3 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of magazine features can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy-pasting my EXACT wording from a different case where I voted delete, especially in a case where it isn't even really relevant to the comment made or the discussion at hand, is not going to help prove your point. In fact, this comment further supports my argument for a keep. Granted, the sources are not entirely in place, but given that the magazine features exist, they could easily be found and added. I make a good faith effort to expand upon and/or confirm the notability of EACH of the articles that I vote on in ANY AfD, especially in cases where it could go either way. From now on, please at least form an original argument instead of spamming AfDs with someone else's words. LaMenta3 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember - you agreed to license your contributions under the GFDL. Epbr123 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that doesn't give you license to take someone else's work and pass it off as your own. LaMenta3 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember - you agreed to license your contributions under the GFDL. Epbr123 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy-pasting my EXACT wording from a different case where I voted delete, especially in a case where it isn't even really relevant to the comment made or the discussion at hand, is not going to help prove your point. In fact, this comment further supports my argument for a keep. Granted, the sources are not entirely in place, but given that the magazine features exist, they could easily be found and added. I make a good faith effort to expand upon and/or confirm the notability of EACH of the articles that I vote on in ANY AfD, especially in cases where it could go either way. From now on, please at least form an original argument instead of spamming AfDs with someone else's words. LaMenta3 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of magazine features can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Nominator has significantly changed his nominating statement since the beginning of this discussion.LaMenta3 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment according to IMDb, her name is Alexis De Vell (note the space in her last name). M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dekkapai, especially the 8 magazine appearances (including an interview), totalling about 50 pages of coverage devoted to her, and the cover photo appearance. -- Black Falcon 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't quite count as reliable independent coverage. Epbr123 20:23, 1 April 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.