379:. I feel I should clarify. I have no objection to Anna Marek's profession and my vote is in my view objective. The article's references show that her movies are widely sold and heavily promoted. But it gives no external evidence that there is anything notable about Ms Marek as a porn star. Examples of this might be- best selling, longest career, first to perform a certain act, having a won a particular award, etc. Knowledge (XXG) cannot become an directory of all pornstars. Therefore, it must be necessary in establish that a pornstar is notable to show how he/she stands out from other pornstars...
234:
page that the article cites. It possibly originates from the people who sell the movies. (Note that the web site onto which it has been copied also sells the movies.) There's no way to know who the author of the FAQ is, and for all that the world knows, all of the biographical information in the FAQ could be complete fiction. It wouldn't be the first time that a purported biography of a porn actress was utter fiction. (Indeed, fictional names and fictional biographies are common practice in the world of pornography.)
245:— her nationality, the fanciful story about her background, her sexual orientation, her weight, her height, and even her age and name (It is interesting to note that one editor's edit summary is "In Polish there is no name like 'Anuschka'".) — is verifiable from good sources that have checked their facts, that can be trusted, and that are independent of the subject and of people trying to sell the subject's movies. That's not enough to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria.
474:
is cheapening, worsening - whatever you would call it - Knowledge (XXG). That is wrong. Knowledge (XXG) is not paper. Nobody will stumble over this article unless searching for it specifically or being random-linked to it. There is no harm to having it here. But then, that is what you'd argue. Oh well, sorry to all for veering off from the main topic.
560:
confirmation that "the historical significance of Anna Marek is undeniable" (as you put it) i.e. from sources other than those selling her work. No one to my knowledge has opposed the presentation of reference material relating to pornography, merely the quality of those references in this instance. -
463:
Disagree with your points. The very notion that she (whoever she was) was famous in her role as a porn star makes her notable enough for me. You may point to WP:BIO all you like - if there is a majority consensus amongst those people who do care enough to argue about it that she is notable - then she
439:
knew what they actually know about Anna Marek, they would report that they don't actually know anything about her at all, apart from the fact that that's the name on a set of pictures. Since an encyclopaedia is a compendium of knowledge, and there is no knowledge to be had, there can obviously be no
537:
Prudishness has neither any rightful nor any desirable place among the qualities of an encyclopaedia: those opposing the presentation of reference material related to (especially mainstream) pornography ultimately undermine the scholarly discussion and fair representation of topics arising from (or
473:
This also harkens back to the old inclusionist or exclusionist debate. Your thrust (beyond arguments about possibly fake info - which can easily be deleted or qualified as untrustworthy in the article) is that having an article listing a porn star about whom not much beyond her pornstardom is known
426:
which states that perpetual stubs with no possibility for expansion should be deleted. Because this person does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, in particular because she doesn't satisfy the primary criterion, there's no possibility for this article to be expanded beyond a stub. Note that editors
156:
It looks alright to me, can you point out its deficiencies in the talk page? I'll see what I can do to fix it. She does have a substanstial fan-base and IMO this article is a lot better sourced than many of the porn star bios in
Knowledge (XXG). She was probably singled out for deletion because she
233:
published source of biographical information about her in the whole world, an "Anna Marek FAQ" that has been pseudonymously posted and re-posted in Usenet newsgroups for about 10 years. It's the FAQ that has been copied onto the one web page that the article cites, and re-hashed on the other web
533:
This article could benefit from more information, but the historical significance of Anna Marek is undeniable. Moreover, the importance of the adult entertainment industry in terms of cultural enlightenment and economic advancement and the evolution of sexual morality can hardly be overstated:
220:- I'm no expert on porn, but I do remember that most of the people I knew in the 90s who were into internet/BBS porn had pictures of her in their collection, so she must have been notable enough back then (otherwise I wouldn't even have remembered who she was). Not sure if she still is today.
559:
Sorry Mr. anonymous user but no one arguing against this article is being prudish. The question is simply whether the movies/pictures themselves and comments by those who promote them are sufficient for notability. I think those arguing against would have been satisfied by impartial external
640:
of porn. We know next to nothing about D.B. Cooper as a person (what is his real name, when was he born, etc.), but we know he existed, and we know what he did. Same for A.M. (No, I'm not saying this makes them equally notable; I'm just trying to provide a different angle here.)
360:
The reason to question notability is the one put forward above: she doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. The only person to mention disliking what she does has been you, and that is a straw man. If you think that she satisfies the WP:BIO criteria, please
391:- A lack of information on a notable topic is not a reason for deletion. And she is just as, or more notable as numerous other porn stars about which little is known except their sexual exploits in the erotic media, but still have articles on here.
252:.) Many people have heard of her, but no-one apart from people who are (given that they invariably offer pictures and movies alongside the FAQ) trying to sell her movies has actually written and published a work of their own about her.
534:
humans are sexual creatures perhaps unique in their ability to appreciate vicariously the sexuality of others, and similarly unique in their (arguably unethical) efforts to regulate human sexuality between consenting parties.
412:. But she hasn't been. There are no non-trivial published works from independent sources about her. No-one, that can be identified and trusted, has seen fit to actually document this person. If you think otherwise, please
240:
verifiable things that can be said about this person that come from sources with a name and a known reputation is that she appears in four porn movies and that a Usenet newsgroup was named after one of her pseudonyms.
444:
where there is knowledge that has been researched, fact checked, and published by a source that, unlike the vendors of pornography (who make up biographies) can be trusted not to be making things up from whole cloth.
431:
had to add unverifiable content, such as her height and weight, and original research, such as the list of aliases, to the article, and have had to rely upon an unreliable source, just to get it as far as it is
115:
206:
The single provided source is highly unreliable. The burden is on you to cite whatever it is that you want to be cited. The closing administrator is not a magic citation machine.
266:
Comment. I disagree with the very notion of a 'famous but not notable' concept. Also, she has done more than four movies. She also did numerous photo sets, far more than four.
329:
address that. There is simply no independently sourced material to be had apart from the list of four movies and the newsgroup name. (If you assert otherwise, please
404:
notable. She is famous (inasmuch as people recognize her picture and her name). There's a difference. She doesn't satisfy our WP:BIO criteria. If she were not
626:. I find its criteria somewhat too narrow, and, in particular, slanted against non-American porn stars (awards as a notability criteria); that's why I'd invoke
169:
I undeleted the talk page, too, but it turned out it was only a replica of the article so I deleted it again. There was no discussion useful to the article. ~
48:. All arguments to keep seem to revolve around ignoring the lack of reliable sources writing about this person... unfortunately that's not a good idea at all.
118:
since no one could find evidence of a prior AfD. So here it is now for full discussion. I reverted to the last version that looks like a biography (and have
541:
365:
to demonstrate this. When you look for sources to cite you'll find solely this one Usenet-circulated FAQ of exceedingly dubious provenance.
248:
Anna Marek is a good example of the distinction between fame and notability, and a rare example of someone who is famous but not notable. (
435:
Put another way: You state that little is known about this person. In fact, pretty much nothing is known. Were you to ask the people who
545:
17:
333:.) That she is famous but not notable is odd to those that erroneously conflate notability and fame, but nonetheless it is true.
83:
78:
229:
I was wondering whether someone would finally try writing about this person. The problem with Anna Marek is that there is
87:
660:
423:
157:
is a lot more famous (or rather infamous) than most of them. Be that as it may, lets see what I can (in good faith). --
36:
585:. I have no problem with including notable porn stars, but I do have a problem with inadequate supporting references.
70:
334:
249:
197:
and source/cite. person seems notable, sources seem available to verify claims in article, thus, keep and cite.--
441:
413:
362:
330:
659:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
549:
645:
607:
589:
569:
524:
508:
496:
478:
468:
449:
395:
383:
369:
355:
341:
312:
292:
270:
260:
224:
210:
201:
189:
173:
161:
148:
126:
52:
599:, in addition to the points raised by Uncle G, it is impossible to write an article that conforms to
170:
123:
352:
600:
49:
538:
substantially connected with) human sexuality and the greater portion of the human experience.
516:, mostly per Ungle G. This article has been around since January 2005, and there are still no
284:- No reference to her beyond her work and those selling it means that in my opinion she fails
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
623:
133:
627:
137:
521:
436:
221:
74:
517:
337:. And Anna Marek is one of the rare examples of someone who is famous, but not notable.
182:
604:
561:
475:
465:
392:
380:
289:
267:
285:
586:
322:
301:
186:
158:
351:, we may not like what she does but that is not a reason to question her notability
642:
582:
493:
446:
366:
338:
281:
257:
207:
198:
636:
Verifiability of biographical data is not the issue. One could almost say A.M. is
633:
Notability is not fame nor importance? Mind you, this is porn we're talking about.
104:
637:
505:
309:
145:
308:
very strange. She was everywhere on the early
Internet in the early nineties.
66:
58:
653:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
504:
for someone who is not notable she is generating a lot of talk.
440:
encyclopaedia article. If you want to show otherwise, please
492:
please the subject reads notable to me and is verifiable too
325:
has not addressed that, because (no discredit to xem) xe
464:
is. That is what
Knowledge (XXG), in the end, is about.
114:
Speedy deletion as recreated material was overturned at
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
663:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
617:. I'd like to make a couple of short points:
185:, single source seems somewhat partisan. --
418:On the contrary, a lack of information
335:Notability is not fame nor importance
250:Notability is not fame nor importance
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
136:(which itself means problems with
24:
321:except for that one single FAQ.
319:nothing at all written about her
317:Her pictures were. But there's
424:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
422:a reason for deletion, per our
1:
416:, as already requested above.
646:21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
622:A.M. probably does not meet
608:20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
590:18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
570:18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
525:16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
509:15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
497:04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
479:12:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
469:12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
450:13:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
396:08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
384:00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
370:00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
356:00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
342:00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
313:23:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
293:00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
271:08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
261:15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
225:14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
211:15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
202:13:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
190:10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
174:10:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
162:08:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
149:03:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
127:22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
53:17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
680:
603:without reliable sources.
408:, she would have been not
304:- I find the argument of
656:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
544:comment was added by
331:point to the material
306:famous not notable
553:
671:
658:
539:
518:reliable sources
183:reliable sources
108:
90:
34:
679:
678:
674:
673:
672:
670:
669:
668:
667:
661:deletion review
654:
540:—The preceding
400:This person is
171:trialsanderrors
124:trialsanderrors
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
677:
675:
666:
665:
649:
648:
634:
631:
619:
618:
611:
610:
593:
592:
575:
574:
573:
572:
528:
527:
511:
499:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
471:
456:
455:
454:
453:
386:
374:
373:
372:
346:
345:
344:
295:
275:
274:
273:
227:
215:
214:
213:
192:
176:
164:
151:
132:Problems with
112:
111:
109:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
676:
664:
662:
657:
651:
650:
647:
644:
639:
635:
632:
629:
625:
621:
620:
616:
613:
612:
609:
606:
602:
598:
595:
594:
591:
588:
584:
580:
577:
576:
571:
568:
567:
564:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
551:
547:
546:68.222.127.35
543:
535:
532:
526:
523:
519:
515:
512:
510:
507:
503:
500:
498:
495:
491:
488:
487:
480:
477:
472:
470:
467:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
452:
451:
448:
443:
438:
433:
430:
425:
421:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
394:
390:
387:
385:
382:
378:
375:
371:
368:
364:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
347:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
314:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
272:
269:
265:
264:
263:
262:
259:
255:
251:
246:
244:
239:
232:
228:
226:
223:
219:
216:
212:
209:
205:
204:
203:
200:
196:
193:
191:
188:
184:
180:
177:
175:
172:
168:
165:
163:
160:
155:
152:
150:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
121:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
655:
652:
614:
596:
578:
565:
562:
536:
530:
529:
513:
501:
489:
434:
428:
419:
417:
414:cite sources
409:
405:
401:
388:
376:
363:cite sources
348:
326:
318:
305:
297:
277:
253:
247:
243:Nothing else
242:
237:
235:
230:
217:
194:
178:
166:
153:
141:
119:
113:
45:
43:
31:
28:
638:D.B. Cooper
231:exactly one
522:Mr Stephen
437:Mark Grant
222:Mark Grant
120:no opinion
67:Anna Marek
59:Anna Marek
605:Chondrite
601:WP:LIVING
476:MadMaxDog
466:MadMaxDog
393:MadMaxDog
381:WJBscribe
353:VaclavHav
290:WJBscribe
268:MadMaxDog
218:Weak Keep
587:WMMartin
542:unsigned
442:point to
323:Eqdoktor
302:Eqdoktor
181:lack of
159:Eqdoktor
643:GregorB
624:WP:PORN
583:Uncle G
502:comment
494:Yuckfoo
447:Uncle G
429:already
377:Comment
367:Uncle G
339:Uncle G
282:Uncle G
258:Uncle G
208:Uncle G
199:Buridan
167:Comment
134:WP:PORN
84:protect
79:history
50:W.marsh
628:WP:IAR
597:Delete
579:Delete
566:scribe
514:Delete
506:Hektor
327:cannot
310:Hektor
278:Delete
254:Delete
179:Delete
146:B.Wind
142:Delete
138:WP:BIO
88:delete
46:delete
630:here.
427:have
122:). ~
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
615:Keep
581:per
550:talk
531:Keep
490:keep
432:now.
406:able
389:Keep
349:Keep
300:per
298:Keep
286:WP:N
280:per
238:only
236:The
195:Keep
154:Keep
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
563:WJB
520:.
402:not
187:pgk
140:).
116:DRV
552:)
420:is
410:ed
288:.
256:.
144:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
548:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.