Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jelena Jensen


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Jelena Jensen

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

Fails WP:ENT. references are rely on primary sources ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒  (inbox - contribs) 19:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. ‍~  𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒  (inbox - contribs) 19:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless she's branched out into musical theatre, there is no coverage, outside of the titillating coverage here or . Bustle is semi-reliable, but knowing what her fave lubricant is, doesn't really build GNG I'm afraid. Name drop here , and here . Ok none are GNG, this is just a fun thing to google. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, pun intended. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have one interview in Vice . I feel with a few other half decent sources it would be a weak keep. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * AVN is still listed by sourcebot as reliable, but I was under the impression it didn't count towards notability? With the Vice and the AVN sources in the article, I'd give this a weak keep, IF AVN counts as a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The main factor in AVN coverage is independence of the coverage, especially who is speaking. I see 3 citations: 1. a non-independent awards roster, also failing depth of coverage; 2. an interview, thus a primary source; 3. article about site relaunch: substantially based on what the subject says and replete with the hallmarks of a repackaged press release. All three fail the independence test. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete for me then, based on the explanation above. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 8 September 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.