Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gia Paloma

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. Joyous! | Talk 00:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Paloma

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

A BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources include interviews, PR-driven industry profiles, directory listings and award nomination materials, resulting in a WP:PSEUDO biography covering trivia such as:

She got into the business because she needed money and also to get back at an ex-boyfriend. She had her breasts augmented in May 2005.^[1]

References

^ AIFD

See WP:WHYN. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO either as the two awards listed are both scene related. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincing for the applicable notability and, with this said, the awards are entirely trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. Even if you count Adult Video News as a reliable source, coverage still fails GNG without additional sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the accurate analyses above. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2016 (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.

[1] AIFD

[1]