Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel Ice (2nd 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Ice[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No nontrivial biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore (2nd nomination) for analysis of why UKAFTA fails PORNBIO standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pronographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP as an article about a living person with no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i'm not optimistic about the fact that this nomination proceeded despite the fact that we are still in flux in regards to criteria for porn-related articles. As such, as it stands, this article is not non-notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is not in a state of flux. There's no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Only the AVN ref is even arguably a reliable source. A biography of a living person that is sourced as paper-thinly as this one kinda demands deletion. David in DC (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:BLP and WP:V, which this topic fails spectactularly, are certainly not in a state of flux. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without reliable sources, and given that UKAFTA has been shown to be pure fiction (see this link [1]), the the subject fails GNG and therefore BLP.Steve Quinn (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADIRECTORY; the article contains no bio data. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)÷[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. WP:PORNBIO is explicitly clear: Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. Well, she has won an AVN award[2] — the question is whether this award counts. Because the award is "Best Sex Scene in a Foreign-Shot Production" and includes a number of other performers, this award appears to be both scene- and ensemble-related. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.