Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorelei (bondage model)

:{{la|Lorelei (bondage model)}} ([{{fullurl:Lorelei (bondage model)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorelei (bondage model)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Could not find any independent secondary reliable source that verifies notability. See WP:PORNBIO. According to WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete passes neither WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO. All the magazines listed appear to be grade-Z skin rags we don't even have articles on ("Ladies in Barefoot Bondage #1"?! Come on.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete--I agree with the above editors. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Added an IMDB link, and still digging for info... SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Temporary keep There is three years of improvement by a number of editors. This could have potential. Deleting it could kill an article by eliminating traces of it. Putting in a user space also hides it. Do not put it in my user space as I do not want porn there. This is not a case of an unknown star trying to write their own article. Is this person one of the more famous bondage stars? If so, this may have merit. Spevw (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'd say if the article has had "three years of improvement by a number of editors" and is still in the present condition, that's a strong indication that bringing it up to article standards is fundametally impossible due to a non-notable subject for whom no reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: 70+ IMDB credits at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1104292/, well-known figure in bondage movies. Regular top-10 appearances as a model in the SIGNY awards, and several times SIGNY best website winner for her bedroombondage.com site. -- Karada (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What are some of the reliable sources that verifies her fame in bondage movies? Even though I don't think top-10 finishes in SIGNY necessarily means she is a serious nominee for a well known award, what are some reliable sources that verify the SIGNYs? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. If the SIGNY nominations award can be backed, and if they can be shown as being notable, then my vote changes. Otherwise I don't see anything in the article to show notability. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:PORNBIO does not apply here. Given the number of references in IMDB there is no reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, bondage videos are a form of pornography so I don't understand why WP:PORNBIO wouldn't apply. IMDB doesn't refrain from listing pornographic movies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a BLP without one single reliable source. RMHED (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. Anyone can add anything to IMDB. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delte. Whether WP:pornbio or WP:bio apply, this fails both. IMDB is not a RS for anything, so it fails verifiability and notability, and i think most would agree that listing someone as a porn actress with no sources is a serious WP:BLP violoation.Yobmod (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

: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.