Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teagan Presley

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teagan Presley[edit]

[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 are rubbish. Porn Awards do not equal notability. There only decent source is about a stalker. That's not worth a biography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the Seattle Times article[1], she has been covered in [2][3][4][5] She passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. We are offered once again in an AfD about a porn BLP claims about sources that turn out to be of little or of no value: All of them, including the impressive reference to The Economist, take us to articles about a case of banks abusing their power, in which our subject is mentioned as a victim of the abuse along with many others in her profession. (In short, banks decided for some reason that they did not want porn performers as their clients and tried to get rid of their busines; it kinda boomeranged.) In sum, there's no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a WP:NOTVALUABLE argument. Not only do those articles note her actual name. They also note her former profession and current job status along with information about what happened to her specifically rather some other victim in the same situation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed the subject has no "value", encyclopaedic or otherwise. So, invoking WP:NOTVALUABLE is without substance. But let's dig in some more: The subject under discussion may well be not just "of value" but quite notable too, though in the typical, "real-life" sense of the term. To be notable for Wikipedia, a subject has to meet certain criteria, among which, our dear, departed WP:PORNBIO no longer is, no matter how deeply its passing is mourned. Presley has to meet WP:NACTOR and the sources you present do not offer her a leg to stand on. That's all there is to it, really. -The Gnome (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources do not make the case for WP:ACTOR / WP:BIO. For example, the Seattle Times source is this: "Porn-star stalker: Pierce County man gets 4-month sentence". The actress' feud with Chase (her tweets / interview) is equally not helpful towards BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 7 January 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.