- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Brooke Haven
- Brooke Haven ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to an interview, the subject's web site, and industry promotional materials, none of which are suitable for establishing notability. The award category listed -- F.A.M.E. Award (Favorite Underrated Star) -- is not significant and well known, thus not meeting WP:PORNBIO either. The article was kept at AfD in 2007, but since then the community standards for BLPs have tightened significantly. I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 21:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass GNG. The main sources of the article are primary and self-published. Independent searches get incidental coverage by the likes of TMZ, mostly concerning an incident with War Machine. Others come from the subject claims of involvement with a football player, mostly based about what the subject says about herself in a TMZ article. One Spanish-language news article credits Wikipedia as its source. GNews hits are available, but they are of low quality. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG. Carrite ( talk) 01:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:19, 21 September 2017 (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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Brooke Haven
- Brooke Haven ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to an interview, the subject's web site, and industry promotional materials, none of which are suitable for establishing notability. The award category listed -- F.A.M.E. Award (Favorite Underrated Star) -- is not significant and well known, thus not meeting WP:PORNBIO either. The article was kept at AfD in 2007, but since then the community standards for BLPs have tightened significantly. I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 21:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass GNG. The main sources of the article are primary and self-published. Independent searches get incidental coverage by the likes of TMZ, mostly concerning an incident with War Machine. Others come from the subject claims of involvement with a football player, mostly based about what the subject says about herself in a TMZ article. One Spanish-language news article credits Wikipedia as its source. GNews hits are available, but they are of low quality. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG. Carrite ( talk) 01:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:19, 21 September 2017 (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.