Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jada Stevens


 * 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. The status of the nominator notwithstanding, the consensus of the discussion by other editors is that this person does not meet our notability requirements. RL0919 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Jada Stevens

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete: Not a notable pornographic film performer.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a bunch of directory listings and promotional PR sources does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete since all we have and all we find are porn related media, awards and promotions. With nothing beyond that, our subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't find her own work also biography related to reliable source. subject fails WP:GNG.- Nahal (T) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete To me it’s a borderline situation; if she had just a few more reliable sources I would say keep. (Aside: It’s kinda confusing when the nominator also votes, kinda redundant). ⌚️ (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The opening nomination of an AfD is a delete vote, that also includes a mandatory rationale. It is a terse, but not unusual, way for some nominators to format their nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
 * Weak keep: being listed on CNBC's 2015 list of the most popular porn stars seems to satisfy WP:NACTOR #2, "has a large fan base". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The source you cite indicates simply that our subject got a lot of "online votes" (without accounting for double voting) for "popular female porn stars," a process that the reporter gauged through looking at the "average of the stars’ Google Trends ranking." Not much there, wouldn't you agree? (And google searches & numbers are not supposed to be used to help identify a subject's notability.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but there's a difference between using WP:GHITS to determine notability and using independent, published sources. The author and/or editors of the CNBC piece decided that online votes and Google Trends were worth reporting on. Whether that was a valid decision has nothing to do with our own notability guidelines. I agree there's not much there, which is why I said "weak keep". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If we keep on using same rationale, 90% of biographical articles related to porn sector would be deleted. There was a reason why WP:PORNBIO was created in the first place. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are made more strict, then it is to be expected that a number of articles will disappear, along with other changes possibly happening, such as use of references. This is exactly the case with the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. It is no longer valid - so articles that have appeared on the basis of WP:PORNBIO are bound to be re-evaluated. And if this means deletion, then deletion it shall be, of one article or of one thousand articles. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2020 (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.