Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Marie


 * 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  23:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Daisy Marie

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sourcing is pretty much all porn ecosystem noise and nothing substantial. Awards no longer count so fails ENT and GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep notable porn star thatcwas covered in reliable sources, also I found has significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Daily Star is as tabloid as the UK press gets so isn't an RS. Please highlight what sources meet the GNG and why so we can assess it your vote is just a bare assertion? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 19:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Invalid keep, tabloids are not usable sources. Zaathras (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing in the article is a usable reliable source to count towards notability. Zaathras (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I couldn't find anything when I checked newspapers.com. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The article lacks enough sourcing to show notability, and no significant additions of reliable sourcing have been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.