Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Lynn Foxx

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Lynn Foxx[edit]

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

Non significant award. And even if it counts, the subject patently fails gng so a technical sng pass should not get more weight than being an effectively unsourced blp. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant enough notabilityWiki Cell (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources online, Has won 1 significent award, Meets PORNBIO #1 and #2, and meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The working consensus from recent AfD debates is "Cream Dream" and other niche categories fall short on the significance part of the "well-known and significant industry award" test in PORNBIO. Other editors take it further: Technical PORNBIO pass - significant reliable sources = non notable. A raw Google search without naming the non-trivial, reliable hits is of little value. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award is not significant. The pornography industry intentionally spills out promotional material. We need to identify coverage outside of this promotional PR juggernaut to show notability and none is shown here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2017 (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.