Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Rhodes

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:26Z

Alicia Rhodes

Alicia Rhodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Breastcruft, pure and simple. No assertion of meeting WP:PORNBIO, the "award" is from the British Girls Adult Film Database, not in any way an important body. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another
  porn actor. Down the chute with it. Anthony Appleyard 12:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO on at least two counts-- #6: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. " 178 appearances (including three on television) listed at IMDB. #7 "There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer." When Layla Jade Met Alicia Rhodes, and Hand Job Heaven All Autumn & Alicia. Dekkappai 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dekkappai. --Dismas|^(talk) 01:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dekkappai. David Hain 12:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable adult film star. Anthony Appleyard, don't be a prude. There is nothing wrong with having an article on porn actors. --
  TrojanMan 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete References are her MySpace and 3 film databases. I am not impressed with these as reliable independent sources. Edison 00:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment does
  WP:N? Edison 00:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep This article needs cleanup beyond what has been presented here, but there is enough of a basis to keep the article. skrshawk 00:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dekkappai, but I agree with skrshawk in that this article needs some serious work. Tabercil 18:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just because the article is on a
  pornographic actor does not make the subject unnotable and unworthy of article recognition. From the evidence provided, this article meets WP:PORNBIO and therefore merits an article. Nishkid64 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Google finds over half a million pages with her name on. Anthony Appleyard 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The number of Google hits is noted in

Googlebombing. Tabercil 16:41, 27 December 2006 (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.