Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loona Luxx (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loona Luxx[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as has not won any awards but merely has numerous nominations. An internet search found no coverage to suggest she would pass WP:GNG. Her article on French Wikipedia has nothing which indicates notability.https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loona_Luxx Finnegas (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both the article and WP:PORNBIO have remained largely the same since the last time you nominated this for deletion. In fact, minor improvements have been made to the article since then. Since nothing has degraded, I see no reason for the final decision to change. So, keep is my vote due to all of the reasons previously stated in the first nomination. Dismas|^(talk) 09:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. PORNBIO was changed since the first AfD discussion to exclude award nominations. At first glance, this article falls short of the revised guideline. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see now that I must have missed that change. My opinion remains unchanged though. Dismas|^(talk) 15:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The prior AFD turned entirely on the now-deprecated nomination criterion; with that rejected, there is no basis for retaining a BLP with negligible reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - Non notable person fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blps require better sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 25 May 2014 (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.