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.
Unless she's branched out into musical theatre
[1], there is no coverage, outside of the titillating coverage here
[2] or
[3]. Bustle is semi-reliable, but knowing what her fave lubricant is, doesn't really build GNG I'm afraid. Name drop here
[4], and here
[5]. Ok none are GNG, this is just a fun thing to google.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
AVN is still listed by sourcebot as reliable, but I was under the impression it didn't count towards notability? With the Vice and the AVN sources in the article, I'd give this a weak keep, IF AVN counts as a RS.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The main factor in AVN coverage is independence of the coverage, especially who is speaking. I see 3 citations: 1. a non-independent awards roster, also failing depth of coverage; 2. an interview, thus a primary source; 3. article about site relaunch: substantially based on what the subject says and replete with the hallmarks of a repackaged press release. All three fail the independence test.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:57, 5 September 2023 (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.
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.
Unless she's branched out into musical theatre
[1], there is no coverage, outside of the titillating coverage here
[2] or
[3]. Bustle is semi-reliable, but knowing what her fave lubricant is, doesn't really build GNG I'm afraid. Name drop here
[4], and here
[5]. Ok none are GNG, this is just a fun thing to google.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
AVN is still listed by sourcebot as reliable, but I was under the impression it didn't count towards notability? With the Vice and the AVN sources in the article, I'd give this a weak keep, IF AVN counts as a RS.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The main factor in AVN coverage is independence of the coverage, especially who is speaking. I see 3 citations: 1. a non-independent awards roster, also failing depth of coverage; 2. an interview, thus a primary source; 3. article about site relaunch: substantially based on what the subject says and replete with the hallmarks of a repackaged press release. All three fail the independence test.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:57, 5 September 2023 (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.