Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariana Marie

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Marie

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. ----NL19931993 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:GNG is met by substantial coverage in mainstream media, including Engadget (four paragraphs of the article), The Daily Beast (three paragraphs of the article), Maxim, and Glamour, plus appearances in numerous other sources. BD2412 T 03:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete The sourcing is not deep enough to actually pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with BD2412 plus there are several more paragraphs about her in another The Daily Beast article [2]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per finding of Morbidthoughts. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep while a lot of porn star articles tend to get flooded with bad quality sources (industry self-promotion, interviews, and other non-WP:RS), this one actally has extensive sourcing to reliable third party coverages specifically about the subject. She might be the rare example of a porn star that passes WP:GNG. That being said, quite a few of these sources are not about her but are instead sources that discuss her in the context of some other topic, but even with that I think the balance tends to lean towards keep. Michepman (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep fair sources, acceptable size. Akela (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2019 (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.