Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessa Rhodes (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessa Rhodes[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Does not meet WP:GNG; was previously deleted and does not seem more notable now. --NL19931993 (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Take the industry specific blabber out of it and it’s gotta count for something that business publications CNBC and Forbes (did a whole article on her) have pointed out her success. Trillfendi (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough 3rd party, indepdent coverage in reliable publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trillfendi, she seems to have international notability.[2][3][4][5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1 is dead

2 is an interview and therefore not independent

3 is also an interview in the context of a lifestyle piece about porn

4 literally says she did an AMA on Reddit and quotes from it. I

None of this is a GNG pass and no other guidelines are met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not straight interviews or straight primary sources disqualifying notability. The journalists in each article synthesizes the information and writes about the person. Journalists from more reputable sources are ethically required to do fact checking and do not just take everything the person says at face value. Sure, the feature may be based on the journalist interviewing the person but there is a reason why they did so. (noticing the person aka notability) Further connection problems is not a disqualifier of a source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources presented are insufficient for WP:BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject does not meet WP:NACTOR or even WP:GNG. The links proffered as "sources" above are not much help. There is a piece on Rhodes in an Italian website, caused by and focusing on a marketing gimmick ("the winner can spend a fiery night with her", etc), which brings her as close to WP:BLP1E as one can get; there's a sociologist interviewing Rhodes here, in Uproxx, the article being about the life of a typical porn actress and not Rhodes herself, as is clearly stated ("Today’s up-and-coming porn starlet is a hustler of different proportions...Take for example Jessa Rhodes") - incidentally, the text's not making us very comfortable when it ends with a promotion of its interviewee, i.e. "Visit Jessa Rhodes on Twitter and Instagram at... also buy her charitable T-shirt for Profane Clothing", etc; there's a Forbes report on the 2014 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo and AVN Awards show, with our subject name-dropped once; and a small write up in the Russian Lenta.ru about her reddit Q&A session, a typical piece of blather. One has to dig far and wide for sources but, in the end, one comes up with nothing much: The subject is simply not notable. -The Gnome (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. May need time to incubate. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2019 (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.