Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora Venter (3rd nomination)

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. Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Venter[edit]

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

A largely uncited BLP that does not meet GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Previous AfD closed as "no consensus" in 2007 based on "100 movies threshold". PORNBIO has been tightened since then, so this no longer applies. The award listed is not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our core content policy on Verifiability requires that all Wikipedia articles be built by summarizing what reliable, third party (independent) sources say about the topic. Our policy on biographies of living people is just as strict, requiring that all contentious material be cited to a high quality reliable source. This article fails both policy tests and must be deleted unless properly referenced. I completed a good faith search for such sources and found nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like Dora Venter but don't think her accomplishments warrant an article here, and the lack of references in this article bears me out. Many important facts in the article are unsourced, and of the sources, one is self-published, one only verifies that she won a minor award, and the last is from Interviú, which by 2005 could hardly be regarded as serious journalism. ubiquity (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails pornbio & gng .–Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete comes nowhere near any of our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I have recently, preliminarily edited the article in question here, and it can likely be expanded (even with some of the currently-cited sources in the article) further in the future. The subject here has "won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival's (which is one of the most "well-known industry award" ceremonies in Europe) "Best Supporting Actress" Award, which is a "significant" & major award category. Guy1890 (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2016 (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.