Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Lust


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Kendra Lust

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Porn blp with inadequate sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaning delete as it stands. If this were a subject in another field, it would not survive on this level of sourcing. BD2412  T 21:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure it would survive if it was a biography of a sportsperson. Christian75 (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Porn stars used to a comparable SNG consideration called PORNBIO. While it is argued that RS coverage is likely to be found eventually for sportspeople that compete at a top level, that presumption repeatedly failed for award-winning porn stars. Sources that cover porn tend be low quality, and this article does not appear to be an exception. WP:NSPORTS is an argument for another forum, but PORNBIO has been settled for two years. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks sufficient non-trivial independent RS coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. The subject would not have passed late versions of the now-deprecated PORNBIO SNG.  With one exception, the articles references consist of the usual promotional press releases and award rosters.  The Creative Loafing article is the only plausibly reliable reference, and that cannot establish notability by itself. An independent search for RS coverage yields trivial coverage, mostly tabloid-grade coverage of her interactions with sports figures. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2021 (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.