Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgette B

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 a quick note to the baseball analogy, merely playing one game in the Majors is considered enough for notability, winning a pennant or award, or being recognised in any way as a good player, is not required. In baseball, a few games and then back to the minors, is considered sufficent. PORNBIO is considerably different than ATHLETE, and the rules for porn performers do make heavy weight of awards. Consensus is to delete this BLP. Courcelles 21:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Most GNews and Gbooks hits are spurious, to various "Bridgette B. [Surname]" texts; what remains after sorting are a handful of press releases and an RS-failing book about "confessions" of the "hottest pornstars" written by a publicist. In short, no significant coverage, no reliable sources, certainly none cited in the article. A single porn award nom isn't sufficient to show notability, and this one is particularly weak, since it's a group nom for 15 performers in a single scene. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She is well-known in the industry. She worked for all big companies. So she passes WP:PORNBIO. http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=BridgetteB/gender=female --Hixteilchen (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A shared award for a group effort might conceivably be perceivable as being as notable as an individual's award, and has precedence within Wikipedia. In an more obvious and widely accepted comparison, we consider those atheletes who were part of winning a National League or American League pennant for their team just as notable for their contribution to the team's overall win as we condsider the MVP Award given being notable in recognition of individual effort. This underscores how WP:PORNBIO selects to set itself seperate from other notability standards. But to User:Hixteilchen, the long and multi-film careers of porn stars are rarely considered qualifying per WP:ENT unless the projects in which they took part are shown as itself being exceptionaly notable. Find coverage for the actress and she might then be seen as meeting WP:GNG, PORNBIO notwithstanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I don't agree with the nominator's stand on group award wins or nominations, the nom is otherwise correct. Bridgette B fails WP:PORNBIO without award nominations in multiple years. RS coverage may be better than most porn stars, but it lacks depth needed for GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and prevent recreation. Agree with the above comment. 173.70.45.40 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2011 (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.