Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aria (adult film actress)

Aria (adult film actress)

Not encyclopedic, not a notable actress. Her IMBD entry has her in nine films, including Nasty Nymphos 31 with eleven others. But let us reflect on that for a moment. Do we believe that there are 350-odd notable porn "stars" based upon the Nasty Nymphos franchise alone? Google is similarly unimpressive. Delete as porn-cruft, despite her "genuine intensity" and "ability to handle multiple partners".

• keep, how is 32,000 google hits unimpressive? Also won various AVN Awards.
  Kappa 04:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - make sure you're not confusing her with Aria Giovanni, a different performer. I don't know this name well enough to cast a vote one way or the other. 23skidoo 04:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any evidence of impact beyond her sphere, or even an unusual level of impact within her sphere? And can we
    brenneman^(t)(c) 04:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Do we have any evidence that no-one would want to look her up, and be disappointed when they found out that wikipedia had destroyed all its information about her?
      Kappa 04:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Using the screenname given in the article, Google returns 432 unique hits for Marie Silva. Attempts to search while differentiating between her and the far more notable Aria Giovanni game up with 500-700 unique hits, depending on the searchstring used. Internet Adult Film Database lists 5 different female entries where Aria is the name, or one of the names, of the 'actress', and one male entry. This means a general Google search for Aria (something porn related) is going to pull up results on all six of these people, plus use of Aria as a generic female name, and linkfarming. If there's a Wikipedia notability criteria for pornstars, I'd like to see it, but at the moment I doubt this Aria would pass it. Delete -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless waste of space. Calsicol 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable prop. —
  FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK
  ) 05:14, Jan. 12, 2006
• Keep Per this Google search, which I find to be more accurate than any of the previous ones. (note a wikipedia article in top ten even when searching for porn! go wikipedia!)--CastAStone|^(talk) 07:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you're untroubled by the fact that this includes links like naughty slumber party pictures! based upon matching "naughty allie foursome naughty rich girls men black gay porn naughty school girl ... naughty office aria ugly black girls having sex street whores santa"? Web search optimisation, you know? Not to mention (per above) that we have no idea if these are for the "Aria" in question?
    
    brenneman^(t)(c) 07:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 306 unique hits from 1.5 million per your search. Its a pity we can't filter out all the linkspam and optimisation, all the misspellings of "Giovanni", and all the websites that don't refer to the Aria in question. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny how many people take the trouble to set up googlebait for people that apparently no-one is searching for.
      Kappa 09:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • These kind of people would set up 'googlebait' for anything if they even thought there was a remote chance of a hit, which in this case I think there is. How hard is it for someone to mis-spell (or completely forget) Aria Giovanni's surname? -- Saberwyn
• Delete. Many of the google 'hits', even those without 'Giovanni' are still referring to
  t c 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Bet you tell kids the Easter Bunny isn't real, too, don't you. What about "genuine intensity" sounds made up to you? :) -Jcbarr 12:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Saberwyn. Search engine spam and non-relevant links galore in Google. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above & AB's SOE point. Eusebeus 14:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. Zunaid 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At first I thought this was Aria Giovanni and I was like, "No way!" ... then I realized it's a nobody. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all non-notable porn stars. Ten a penny, just like their films. The fact that there's so much confusion because of her incredibly generic name demonstrates why we don't want an article on every single porn star. Think of poor
  (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • She isn't non-notable, she won was nominated for a bunch of awards. And we'd only need one
    Kappa 16:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment: do you have the specifics/a reference for these AVN awards? Sliggy 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I can't cite that she won any but she was nominated for 7 [1].
        Kappa 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Thanks for the link, appreciated. It confirms that she hasn't won an
          AVN Award. I don't think a nomination to one of these awards is proof of significance (we're not talking the Nobel prize or Oscars here, are we?), and there doesn't seem to be much else in the way of claims of significance so delete. Sliggy 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Delete per Brenneman, Malthusian, et al. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 05:43Z
• Delete as insufficiently notable. As far as I know, all cited AVN awards were for Aria Giovanni, not for Marie Silva aka "Aria". Whenever a name becomes notable, as in Ms. Giovanni's case, several aspiring starlets take on the first name as a pseudonym, and others use the surname with a different first name as if they were her "sister". Barno 17:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having sex doesn't make one notable, nor does doing so in front of a video camera. -R. fiend 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does if you are Traci Lords or Sylvia Saint. Let's not allow personal bias to dictate our decisions. --kingboyk 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ...but this 'performer' would appear to be not notable. --kingboyk 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are some notable porn people, but it seems we've gone too far. Verifiability problems also. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete not quite notable enough for Wikipedia IMO, wish her the best, though. Johntex\^talk 03:24, 15 January 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.