Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Rose (actress)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Daniel (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Mia Rose (actress)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mia Rose (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sourcing inadequate. Spartaz Humbug! 21:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - She passes the GNG with these feature coverage Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- 1 is broadly an interview, therefore not independent, 2 ditto and 3 is avn and not something that we will hang a blp on. Even wp:porn warns that avn has to be used with caution. In any event it has no byline and is mostly interview and reads like it is promotional. There isn’t the necessary multiple reliable sources here. Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- You should reread WP:Primary and WP:SECONDARY as writers and reporters are allowed to interview the subjects to develop secondary coverage (See WP:INTERVIEW). WP:PORN is not policy or authority to discount AVN. However, an RFC at RSN recently declared they were reliable, but you already knew that. The byline was also lost when AVN redid their website and archives several times. You can see it here Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Sources do not meet notability criteria. AVN and XBIZ can be used to source basic facts about porn topics, but they are not a measure of reliability. Zaathras (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2021 (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.