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. Consensus determines that the article fails GNG Nakon 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Savage

Angie Savage (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)

Prod tag removed without commentary, so here we are. The subject fals to meet either the WP:GNG or the WP:PORNBIO criteria. The latter was once much looser (pun unintended) than it is now, and the subject's multiple AVN nominations and one win for a group award no longer meet the guide's criteria. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this one would have the potential to pass WP:PORNBIO#3 and WP:NACTOR if her roles in Savage's films listed in the article, particularly The Locals and Cut, were significant and if such films (currently both red-linked) were notable. Leaning towards delete, but if such films are notable it could even be a bordline keep. Cavarrone 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
on that basis this is a Clare fail of PORNBIO so should be deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz: the comment by Tarc to which you responded was improperly researched before it was made. Care to reconsider? Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do yourself a favor; unless you were in my house looking over my shoulder at the time, do not lie about my actions while filing this AfD. As stated below, routine man bites dog coverage in local sources is observed, but discounted. There wewre two articles in two local papers about a local teacher who lost a selectman election last week by 3 votes. By the low-hanging fruit mentality of the all-but-forgotten Article Rescue Squad, he'd qualify for an article here, which is absurd. Significant, in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources is the standard, a standard which this porn starlet does not meet. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One need not look over a shoulder to logically determine that either research was done or it was not. If not done, then I did it and you're welcome. But if it was done, it is not a lie to logically conclude that a conscious decision must have been made to not disclose. And if research was done, there was no effort made to mention any of her non-porn work from the time after she left that industry. THAT inadvertent omission could taint an fair consideration of the topic being discussed and needed to be addressed. So, my lengthy response above was toward a dismissive reference made toward an alphabetical cast list from an "unreliable" source... and to address anyone declaring her role as minor based upon the "unreliable" source listing her alphabetically as 11th out of 12, when the official poster lists her 4th out of 12. And this former porn star does have the requisite significant coverage and peer recognition... but only in those genre sources deemed suitable enough for her former profession, and not suitable for the rest of the film industry. For the disliked porn profession, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT are inexplicably and repeatedly ignored in favor of the dismantled WP:PORNBIO, and WP:GNG is ignored because the sources are porn genre media, rather than mainstream press. If the expected research was done, what was also unmentioned is that she does have the featured roles in multiple mainstream projects as required by even the dismantled PORNBIO's prong #3... often being in the first four cast being credited... in non-porn horror projects that may have the coverage to be be notable enough for articles. Their being redlinks is not automatically non-notable... redlinks simply mean an article is unwritten as of yet.
Personally, and specially as it causes way too many headaches and far too much dissension and drama, I think PORNBIO should be rendered historic. Actors should all be treated equally and by the same set of measures. We can and should fall back to the applicable WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO. IF we were looking at this as a bio of a young actress and discussing only her works since 2011, and not discussing her in the context of the career she has left behind, WP:ENT might be seen as just met... and this discussion might not have become so devolved due to that former career.
If this is deleted, An improved article might be worth a return... an article dealing with she and her non-porn activities, rather than concentrating so heavily on her old. Thank you, 06:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not true, as it has already been clearly demonstrated that the subject fails the tightened pornbio guide. As for NActor, no, there are zero notable film roles. A news-of-the-day story about her weiner business is all that there is, which is insufficient for the general notability guide. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 20 March 2015 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angie_Savage
No tags for this post.