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 delete. Two of the three "keep" opinions do not reflect any consideration of the level of sourcing, which is what at issue here, and are given less weight in assessing consensus. Sandstein 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable pornstar unworthy of having a page on Wikipedia. She fails WP:Pornbio for having just 140 films to her credit (per iafd) and no significant awards ("Favorite Breasts"???). She also has no independent, secondary, reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The sources here are the typical AVN, star-factory, Penthouse, xbiz and such, which are not independent of the subject. Redban (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more or less per nom. No qualifying awards, therefore failing PORNBIO; no nontrivial reliably sourced biographical content, thereby falling below the GNG bar. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to be disruptive, aren't you? Scene awards don't count under PORNBIO, and there are no other relevant claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citing my reason for keep isn't being disruptive, I personally believe she passes PORNBIO and GNG due to the awards as well as overall searches on Google. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"due to the awards" -- Didn't you read WP:PORNSTAR? Scene-related awards don't count.Redban (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject very likely fails PORNBIO, but meets GNG given the level of coverage in secondary sources about her. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources I see are promotional "About Me" information from her own site; promotional "Model Biography" from Penthouse; AVN Press Releases; TheStarFactory Press Releases; and IAFD. In other words, the only sources are promotional or primary, which doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The analysis of the sources above suggests that this fails the GNG and this is a BLP. SpartazHumbug! 19:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no awards, no mainstream credits (just an apparence on the Howard Stern's radio show), very weak coverage. I have not checked one by one the articles to verify they are all press releases, maybe a couple are not, but most of them smell of that, anyway there isn't enough for passing GNG. Cavarrone 09:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Let us try another week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails on all three criteria of PORNBIO. No notable awards or any other notable presence. -- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 23:44 CET.
Delete for all the reasons already listed. (If there's a list article for Penthouse or Hustler pin-up girls, possibly a redirect.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2015 (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.
