Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cara Fawn

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 no consensus. — Jake Wartenberg 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Fawn

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor is it apparent this article meets any of the more generalized criteria for Notability. All four References in this article consist of links to an unfortunately named (and almost certainly non-Reliable) website called "FANBOY PLANET." While the article claims the subject has taken a hiatus from adult films, and "has been shooting more mainstream films," her page at IMDB does not seem to reflect that. The article mentions her starring and executive co-producing in a science-fiction movie called "The Villikon Chronicles: Genesis of Evil," but IMDB has never heard of such a film. After Googling it, it appears to be something people are watching on YouTube. While YouTube has been an avenue to success for Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and likely a few other mainstream efforts, I think its safe to say that first comes the success, and then comes the Notability. And there's no indication this Villikon project has yet met with success. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient reliable secondary sources from which to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfied WP:ENT has appeared in significant roles in over 70 commercial productions. Chuthya (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the event we were to embrace your argument, any person who starred in two or more commercial porn releases would have to be deemed Notable. The question is, can a role that is at the heart of an obscure, minor, out-of-print & likely unobtainable pornographic film, shot over the course of a six-hour production schedule in someone's suburban home, ever properly be deemed "significant," as per WP:ENT? With very few exceptions, the answer is clearly "no." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes PORNBIO. She was nominated for at least the 1999 XRCOs and 2000 Hot D'Ors. I'm sure she has multiple AVN nominations from that time period too but we can't confirm it since AVN nominations are not tracked online prior to 2000. Multiple appearances on mainstream shows and one movie. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are those considered notable awards? The Hot D'OR is a defunct award from a French magazine that only existed for 9 years. The ref for it is not a RS. The XRCO ref is also not a reliable source and the award seems to be a second teir one to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any award that has a Wikipedia article is generally considered notable. Also, AVN is an adult industry trade journal that is considered reliable. Epbr123 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her notability is as Cheyenne Silver Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL so maybe the article should be renamed as that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that she does qualify for WP:PORNBIO. As for notability, we can't use the same notability ruler against a porn star as a Hollywood star. Just the fact that she's into pornography - and the fact that pornography is still somewhat underground, it is much more difficult to establish notability on the Internet. Groink (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per her mainstream appearances. BTW, she doesn't actually pass WP:PORNBIO criteria 2, because her XRCO nomination was for the 2000 awards. This has now been corrected in the article. Epbr123 (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per arguments made by nominator. Also:Starred in a film made in 6 hours in someone's home? Sounds like a home movie. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Edison (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which film are you talking about? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2009 (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.