Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcadia Lake (pornographic actress)

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. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Lake (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

I worked to try and improve this article many years ago but, as a recently sandblasting proved, I was doing so on a fairly thin premise. The more I have considered it, the more I believe that she meets neither WP:PORNBIO nor the level of coverage required to satisfy the general notability guidelines' requirement of nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Having done everything I can to try and make this article satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines, I have come to this conclusion that this article should probably be deleted. Canadian Paul 00:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG only has IDM and AMD type sources which are unreliable.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO. Role in Debbie Does Dallas does not rise to the level of starring in a blockbuster feature. AFAA award nomination not sufficient. No reliable source coverage found to pass GNG. The sources in the article are unreliable. They were even worse before Hullaballoo Wolfowitz cleaned the article up. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for actresses of this type.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An actress who appears in 40 films, even 3rd rate films deserves inclusion. I checked after seeing the deletion notice on the article that Google returns a lot of hits for her and the movie databases have more information about her than Wikipedia. Maybe part of the question is, should the movie databases should be a users first search choice not Wikipedia? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmcdonell (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a lot of films does not make someone notable, especially when they are not notable films, and the person does not have leading roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. You'd expect (or at least I'd expect) a porn performer from this period, with credits in a significant number of prominent-in-genre films, to have generated some reliable commentary. It's just not to be found. The choice of a well-known resort name for her pseudonym makes searching rather difficult, but even a targeted GBooks search like --"Arcadia Lake" Dallas-- turns up only a small number of cast lists, nothing substantive. After my "sandblasting" of the article a few months ago, I expected somebody to add useful, reliably sourced content, but there just doesn't seem to be any out there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jeffrd10 --BiH (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2014 (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.