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 keep.
Michig (
talk) 10:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails GNG, and technical SNG passes are not sufficient to ignore that this is an inadequately sourced BLP.
SpartazHumbug! 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Solid Keep. She meets
WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). QED.
Britishfinance (
talk) 02:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. As other arguments - meets
WP:PORNBIO which was created for situations such as this.
Curved Space (
talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - 2016 XBIZ Award Best Actress meets WP:PORNBIO.
Guilherme Burn (
talk) 19:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete meeting PORNBIO based on an industry award is not enough. She fails
WP:ENT and sourcing is poor. Many biographical details about porn actors are faked so we need to be careful here.
Legacypac (
talk) 18:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 22:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discusss the subject directly and in detail; fails
WP:BASIC. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or
WP:SPIP. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 20:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as per her winning awards as well as the sources provided, Passes PORNBIO & GNG with flying colours. –
Davey2010Talk 22:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes PORNBIO, and good sources. 00:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cindlevet (
talk •
contribs)
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 keep.
Michig (
talk) 10:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails GNG, and technical SNG passes are not sufficient to ignore that this is an inadequately sourced BLP.
SpartazHumbug! 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Solid Keep. She meets
WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). QED.
Britishfinance (
talk) 02:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. As other arguments - meets
WP:PORNBIO which was created for situations such as this.
Curved Space (
talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - 2016 XBIZ Award Best Actress meets WP:PORNBIO.
Guilherme Burn (
talk) 19:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete meeting PORNBIO based on an industry award is not enough. She fails
WP:ENT and sourcing is poor. Many biographical details about porn actors are faked so we need to be careful here.
Legacypac (
talk) 18:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 22:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discusss the subject directly and in detail; fails
WP:BASIC. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or
WP:SPIP. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 20:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as per her winning awards as well as the sources provided, Passes PORNBIO & GNG with flying colours. –
Davey2010Talk 22:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes PORNBIO, and good sources. 00:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cindlevet (
talk •
contribs)
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.