Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Jet (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Joanna Jet
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: Of the current sources, #1 is an interview, #5 and #7 are short, promotional profiles in industry award listings, and the remainder are namedrops in award rosters. Porn industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only passing mentions in someone else's memoir/personal essay and a work of fiction. Cheers, gnu 57 20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Agreed not notable. --NL19931993 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable pronographic performer and director. If it was deleted in 2006 it is almost certain it is not notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame. Redirects are cheap. ミラP 01:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. If a redirect is made, nuke the content as poorly sourced first.  Half of the article's prose is based on a puff piece interview, the rest isn't sourced at all.  An independent search for RS coverage comes up empty. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2019 (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.