Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Night

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Night[edit]

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

The article does not meet BIO or PORNBIO; the awards listed are scene related and / or not significant and well known. The article is sourced to directory listings or award information. No meaningful bio content provided; no significant RS coverage can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur, listed awards are either simply nominations or then unconvincing such as for being part of an ensemble. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many international awards and nominations. Notable.
Subtropical-man^talk
_(en-2) 21:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which awards are "significant and well known" to satisfy WP:PORNBIO? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above keep vote ignores that nominations do not count, only wins. None of the awards are significant so we must delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:PORNBIO -- simply not enough body of work. Quis separabit? 00:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another BLP without significant reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any coverage to satisfy GNG. I don't care about PORNBIO in this case and would !vote delete regardless. WP:WHYN requires that we have enough reliable sources to write an NPOV article about the subject. When these sources do not exist, there is no point in creating a 2 line article simply because the subject may have won some industry award. Keeping article like these essentially makes Wikipedia a directory. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 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.