Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Mars

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. ✗plicit 00:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Mars[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)

The only potential rs (no 3) is a research paper and name checks her in a list of performers. There is nothimg otherwise that is not an interview, non rs or a self-reverential mention of an award win or nomination. Total GNG, V and BLP fail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning 3 AVN awards in 2020, significantly contributes to the notability of Natalie Mars. 89.8.182.139 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another AVN Award, in 2021, adds to the notability. That German-wiki has had an article since March this year - without discussion about notability - is not a bad indication (even though they have their own rules). 89.8.92.96 (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- since PORNBIO was deprecated award wins and nominations no lomger count. What are your sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like this one could have more to find. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a prime example of "overwhelm by reference-bombing", 57 with most going to porn sites. Not a shred of notability to be found here, porn awards count for zero, so the IPs keep above should b discarded outright. Zaathras (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT, per review of available sources. Industry awards as indicators of notability (what the IP's vote is based on) have been deprecated, along the entire WP:PORNBIO. There's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a won-awards PORNBIO without sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:BASIC or support any WP:ENT claims. As noted above, 54 of the 57 citations are porn award rosters. The remaining 3 are a brief mention in an academic journal paper, an interview and a social media post. Take out the primary-sourced puffery, and these only reliably verify that the subject is a porn performer. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 21 November 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.