Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariella Ferrera

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. bd2412 T 21:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ariella Ferrera[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no awards, no unique contributions, no coverage in mainstream media. Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:N and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely asserts notability. No claim for WP:PORNBIO. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources for WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls far short of PORNBIO and even farther short of the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added more info and partial awards on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poofbreeder (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 August 2017 UTC (UTC)

In general, the new content is not supported by non-trivial independent reliable sources. Most of it is based on interviews (primary sources) on two sites of questionable reliability. For GNG: No progress. For PORNBIO: 1) Award nominations do not count. 2) 23rd billing in a minor mainstream film falls way short of the "featured in multiple mainstream media" standard. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added new references from a reliable source (AVN.com). The "two sites of questionable reliability" have been used in pages such as Girlfriends Films and India Summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poofbreeder (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For GNG: PORNBIO of page in debate is still short despite being longer than pages such as Johnny Castle and Shyla Jennings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poofbreeder (talk • contribs) 08:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AVN is not a RS and this still fails everything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AVN citations are reprinted press releases, failing the intellectually independent test for reliable sources. Quantity of content does not establish notability, especially when that content is not based on independent secondary sources. Notability is judged on the availability of non-trivial independent reliable published sources or reliably sourced evidence of special achievement in porn. Neither are in evidence here. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The official AVN links seem to show 404 error which means it may not be possible to cite the claimed info as per WP:PORNBIO. Also the spanish version of this article has survived for more than 30 months. Given the amount of contribution made by the performer to the adult industry, who unfortunately hasn't been mentioned much in media, I would like to give this article a chance to grow as the performer is still in business. -Casktopic_say 19:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other language Wikipedia editions have their own notability guidelines. The es.Wikipedia article cites IMDb as its reference, clearly not acceptable here. As for AVN, all links are either working or are successfully waybacked. Two are republished press releases. The award nomination citations are trivial coverage confirming that the actress was nominated for awards. Nominations don't count towards PORNBIO notability. Finally, contributions to porn need reliable sources to verify them. They do not seem to be available. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:PORNBIO and significant RS coverage not found. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 20 August 2017 (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.