Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liandra Dahl


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Liandra Dahl

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Notability not established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. None of the sources provided present significant coverage about this individual, outside of commercial sites and self-published profiles of the subject's like and dislikes and what not. No indication that the subject meets the WP:PORNBIO criteria.  Cind. amuse  18:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Don't Delete. Notability is established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources via these articles The Herald Sun, news.com.au and The Herald Sun 2nd. So there is indication that the subject meets the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Frankdouglas (talk) Don't delete Liandra Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, That while masturbating either alone or with others she provides a genuinely honest and intelligent running commentary of how she feels from arousal, to climax. She's done this on the Australian sites like ifeelmyself.com and now on her own site and I've never seen anyone do anything like it before. What she does is new and fresh and because it is unique, rather than deleting, it needs defining and classifying. and those two things need qualifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natrisomaticalopticalise (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to say delete, but I'm not entirely sure: The Herald Sun article is the only source at the moment which comes close to demonstrating notability, but I do not consider it sufficient to meet either WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG since it is only one source. However the article says that she has been interviewed by 3 other media organisations, in which case these guidelines may be met. I've had a look for them online, without any luck, so am essetially unsure what to suggest.
 * Comment. See comment below.  Cind. amuse  22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two articles by the Herald Sun referenced now and a news.com.au article also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankdouglas (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. See comment below.  Cind. amuse  22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The first herald.sun.au article is a significant article about Dahl. However, the news.com.au article is a mirror and exact copy of the second herald.com.au article. These two articles are not about Dahl, but focus on the porn industry in Melbourne. Dahl offered a comment, along with several current and former models. Wholly insignificant coverage of the subject.  Cind. amuse  22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. it may be a mirror article in news.com.au but it is another independent source that saw fit to give further coverage to the article. As the articles are all related to following the effects of the first article and Dahl's blog on the Australian industry I think they are obviously significant coverage of the subject and all three articles go towards establishing the significance of Liandra Dahl. Frankdouglas (talk)
 * So...talking while rubbing one out is now a new & exciting porn genre. Lulz. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Cited news coverage is limited to a single event and provides no useful information about the individual herself. If the event itself were notable, a BLP1E merge might be considered, but it seems pretty generic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - A promotional fluffer of a biography for a non-notable pornographic movie performer. Fails PORNBIO. Carrite (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fluffer. I see what you did there. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet any applicable notability guideline. Being quoted in one article for critiquing porn doesn't cut it. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (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.