Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amarna Miller

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. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amarna Miller

[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)

pure promotionalism--reads as a press release, complete with links to everything possible.

No actual major films, but "she is also very active in social media" DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes the GNG with coverage in multiple Spanish reliable sources.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Reducing her notability to social media activity is just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Do you think the main/only issue is the promotionalism? And do you feel she otherwise meets the notability criteria? I ask because, on promotionalism alone, at a glance it doesn't seem like the article is so bad that WP:TNT is the only solution.
- I've only really taken a glance at the article. I personally don't place much weight on all of the porno-related links myself. AfD and DRV have consistently reaffirmed the higher standard adult performers need to hit until they can meet notability (most recently in my Eva Lovia AfD), and so in that respect I doubt she meets notability, but I do notice the feature on GQ Spain for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed from comment to keep. Meets GNG, not overly promotional. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. With reliable sources indicated above, the article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:29, 24 June 2020 (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.