Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Koshka


 * 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. Joyous! Noise! 02:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Elena Koshka

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

non-notable pornographic actress, no sources found for RS (only videos of her performances). Working in marketing and on webcam is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, Russia, California,  and Oregon.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not every pornographic actress is notable. Just like not every actor is notable. MidwestWeirdfest (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable pornographic actress due to total absence of any sort of media footprint (besides her video performances, which are plenty). To the creator: similar article belongs on an aggregator resource such as IMDB for pornographic actresses. But not on Wikipedia. MitYehor (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * keep according to WP:ENT. — MY OH MY ! 22:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Are you able to provide 2 or more sources which meet the general notability guidelines? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 21:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as after a Google search, there is a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources beyond the AVN piece so that WP:GNG is not passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find anything that would lead me to believe the subject passesWP:GNG nor any other guideline. Jacona (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article subject has no claim to WP:NOTABILITY, falling short of WP:GNG and WP:ENT, and lacks WP:INDEPTH coverage by RS. Shawn Teller (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom.Lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2023 (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.