Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Marilyn


 * 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. –MuZemike 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Emily Marilyn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PORNSTAR per its own claims and is entirely unsourced. I'd normally clean up BLP vios as I go, in case it's kept, but the whole article would be gone. JFHJr (㊟) 06:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable actress, with no sources to justify any notability. IMDB would not count as a source, as well as the other links provided. Tinton5 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - appears to be non-notable, lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable fetish model, all Ghits are trivial. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: - "Emily Marilyn" on google image search with safe search turned off shows 215,000 hits, the first couple couple of pages all seem to be the same person. That seems like a lot. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually got a higher number by a few thousand using the same search method. Think the content of those photos is something on which to base notability? Plus, I'm pretty sure image hits don't figure into notability per wikipedia anyway. These images certainly don't count as in-depth coverage even if you can literally see all there is to the subject. Part of the reason is that they're published by WP:SPS and other encyclopedically unreliable sources. The other part is that they just don't give us anything of note or substance to say. Practically, I imagine it would be hard to muster prose about the number and content, based on google searches of the interwebs at some particular time. Maybe someday she'll pass WP:PORNSTAR and this can be undeleted at the request of someone who isn't closely associated with her. JFHJr (㊟) 08:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! &mdash;  11:13, 18 November 2011 (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.