Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Phoenix

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. Tone 17:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Phoenix

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources fall short of requirements to meet GNG or Ent. Just porn industry chatter and a mention in an article about something else. As a BLP the community expects far better. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets GNG with coverage in generally reliable sources (per RSP) that cannot be overriden by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and yes that includes AVN articles like [1][2] etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem. RSP makes it clear that magazine articles might count per the actual RSN discussion but sources clearly need ti be used cautiously and what you have presented clearly fails the GNG. 1) isn’t clearly in the mag and is an interview so lacks independence. 2) is obviously a reheated press release just from the format and again appears online rather than published. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not what it says, especially since we discussed the promotional articles on the website within the discussion, and the entry says ... (which is marked as such in search). The cautions are listed on the RSP listing, and the links are not promotional, albeit need to be used with judgement applied (quotations of the individual are less reliable than things in the magazine's voice). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going to agree with ProcrastingatingReader here. AVN and XBIZ coverage does count in addition to the San Francisco Chronicle article and coverage about American Apparel's controversial ad campaign starring Phoenix discussed in these academic publications [3][4][5][6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Industry blotter is insufficient for establishing notability, while San Francisco Chronicle is a passing mention. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3 of ENT is met by those 4 journal articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BASIC; passing mention, nothing lasting and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2022 (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.