Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobbi Starr

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. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC) procedural close. A number of the participants below have since been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, so vacating my close to allow an immediate re-nomination given the original discussion was not clean. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Starr[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)

Beining on a couple of dirty dozen pages doesn't seem the basis on which to base a blp. Nothing else here that comes close to a gng or ent pass and blp should be better than this. Awards are no longer a free pass to notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I believe she's actually notable. The CNBC reference lists her as one of the most popular porn stars of 2013. She's also interviewed in Pornography Feminism, which is explicit but also includes biographical information during an interview. She's also been the subject of multiple, if small, independent news stories, as well as having been quoted. For example. She was notable enough where she was a face of the industry to the media outside of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish, she does appear to be notable in her field. She also had some newspaper coverage after an appearance in Australia (1, 2, 3) one (the first link provided) even went as far to call her "one of the world's most famous porn stars." So that along with the CNBC article, there are independent sources outside of the porn industry implying notability and enough non-trivial coverage to pass the GNG in my opinion. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject seems to passes GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources clearly establish her notability as a notable porn star.Fatzaof (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is not nearly at the level to pass the actual criteria of GNG. Interviews never count towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (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.