Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tera Wray

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. Whether it is kept as a standalone article or merged to the Wayne Static article can be discussedon the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Wray

[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)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Death by suicide does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Update: I would support a redirect to Wayne_Static#Personal_life, where the subject is already sufficiently covered. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sad story. No shortage of references in the article and independent verifiable sources on and beyond. A book example: in this book (linked at the first of two relevant pages), published by the prestigious McFarland & Company, she has her very own biographic entry. This biographic entry and many of the articles are WP:INDEPTH. Not in in depth, she is also mentioned in the 2014 volume of the same book series when her husband died. While Wray may fail the professional standard, the books and national and foreign press articles clearly draw her across the WP:GNG line. A press example: one of the UK's huge three national newspapers published this article focused on the life and death of Tera Wray. This international interest in the late actress, model, and show host emerges also from the fact that over a dozen other Wikipedias have articles about Wray. Would add sadness to the story if only her home WP decides to delete her biography while so clearly meeting WP:BASIC! gidonb (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few passing references does not add to meeting GNG. A total and clear fail of our notability guidelines for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to merging with Wayne Static. Most of the available RS coverage, not well-reflected in the article, discusses her in the context of her late husband's work and career. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She wasn't notable as a porn star and most of the reliable source coverage has to do with her being the wife of Wayne Static, who himself is notable and related to her suicide. I'd be fine also with the article deleted and redirected to his, under the Personal life section. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources on Google News, Very sad story, Anyway I wouldn't have any objections to merging but the history should be kept regardless of the closure outcome (except delete obviously). –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect with Wayne Static - it seems she's primarily known through association with him. I'm unimpressed at Gidonb saying "A press example: one of the UK's huge three national newspapers" without mentioning that said national newspaper is considered an unreliable source. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ritchie333, I couldn't possibly have mentioned what I did not know at the time but thank you for bringing this survey to my attention. As you correctly quote me, it is just an example. I'll provide another one instead: Porrstjärnan död efter tragedin med artisten translation from Swedish: Porn star dead after tragedy with artist. Furthermore: there is this returning suggestion, also here, just to merge bios of people with those of their slightly more famous spouse. Mostly these are suggestions to merge the bio of the wife into that of the husband, i.e. a form of toned down chauvinism. In my opinion this should only be considered when one of the partners does not pass the GNG. Not the case here! gidonb (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should be WP:SNOW, it so obviously meets general notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2018 (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.