Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Donovan

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Donovan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Giving evidence in a trial is poor gruel for a blp. Needs much better sourcing than this Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since whatever claim to notability the subject possesses, in terms of Wikipedia or even of real life, is based on only a run-of-the-mill career in porn, for which she had a few interviews published. Her career by itself is not enough for a Wikipedia article after the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. Subject fails WP:GNG. And the attempt to enlist a certain, rather uneventful trial fails on account of, if nothing else, WP:1E. -The Gnome (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did my best to clean up the article, which was rather fanboy-ish, and add as many citations as possible, however, it's slim pickings. I've had my morning fill of weeding through 1980s porn adverts in newspapers... While it doesn't really matter when making this decision, she left the industry, has been involved in programs to get people to end their porn addictions, and is anti-porn, so we'd probably be doing her a favor.... Missvain (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not keep porn stars anymore unless we have SIGCOV for a bio. As an aside, here is someone famous for testifying at a trial. Lightburst (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is exactly the kind of stuff that deprecating WP:PORNBIO has allowed us to get rid of. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an overly promotional article that needs to be scrapped. I look forward to the day when we finally have less than 300 articles in the American pornographic actresses category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2020 (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.