Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helga Sven


 * 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, fails WP:BIO, noting that while a movie may be notable, one of its actors may not be. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Helga Sven

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources to verify notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The link from the article to this page via the AFD template seems to be corrupt as it shows this page to be empty. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That happens sometimes, I'm not sure exactly why though. The redlink still leads to this discussion, so I don't think it's a huge problem. It just takes you directly to the edit window instead. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:PORNBIO.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep searching for reliable refs for pornographic actors is a massive chore, since Googling their names brings up a aircraft-carrier sized mountain of spam and porn links. But she appears to be a significant actress in the mature genre.  Ford MF (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, performing in two banned movies (tho they weren't banned because of her) should on its own confer sufficient notability. Ford MF (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the criteria for inclusion at the relevant notability guideline, and lacks reliable sources to which the information could be verified, thus the content could be original research and fail WP:NPOV. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  17:23, 15 June 2008 (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.