Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mika Tan


 * 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. Bearing in mind that AfD is not a vote, as closer I need to evaluate the policy-based strength of arguments. The arguments to keep are not supported by sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I expect that some editors would prefer that this be relisted, but relisting will not cause independent reliable sources or general notability to appear out of the ether. No prejudice against restoring to draft if it is believed that stronger sources will develop or be found. BD2412 T 01:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mika Tan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO - listed sources in the article are primary or unreliable. Google News, Books, and Scholar reveal trivial coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - no notable Ghits, so very likely does not pass WP:BIO as mentioned. May also fail WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easily meets WP:NACTOR That aside, try google books and scholar searches for her published works in biology from her days in academia. --John B123 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How does she meet WP:NACTOR and how much academic work could she have put out in pursuing her bachelor degree? We don't even have her real name to make this association. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Has a large fan base", "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Presumably the works were during her post-graduate studies.--John B123 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What evidence in reliable sources demonstrate those factors? The article doesn't even mention any post-graduate studies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point, which is not that I'm suggesting WP:NACADEMIC is applicable, but that sometimes you need to search beyond multiple pages of porn site results. --John B123 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I meant the evidence that she complies with BIO, particularly WP:ENT. If you or someone else provide the evidence, the article is more likely to be kept. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to your edit summary of "I'm not going to go looking for it", I would remind you that one of the prerequisites of nominating an article for deletion is "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself". --John B123 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did looking at Scholar Books and News. I'm not doing any more beyond that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep meets GNG, even if nom is unwilling to follow WP:Before. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE needs to identify good sources. The references are article fail the non-trivial reliable secondary source test (the subject's former website, blogs, press releases, interviews and award rosters). My own searches yielded trivial mentions and false positive matches. The nominator has asked, and I'm asking again, what are the good sources that support claims of notability? • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The nominator's assessment of cited and available sources is correct. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - once again !keep voters casting aspersions on AfD nominators unfairly. WP:BEFORE is not an exhaustive process and just because one source has been found, doesn’t mean the nominator didn’t look. Having said that, !keep voters have presented no new sources nor explained why they believe the current sourcing is adequate (it isn’t). WP:AGF in future please. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on the Complex article and everything else present in the article. Seemingly notable in their taboo field. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Complex article is an opinion piece with per-item links to related paid content. The writer specializes in lists of top-x things in pop culture. There are several performers on this list were deleted at AfD even before PORNBIO was taken down.  Is top 50 a meaningfully selective cut for this niche of the industry?  • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:ENT 'prolific contributions'. Ipsign (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ipsign What reliable sources is this based on? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of filmography, I'd take (multiple corroborating) movie databases as reliable enough. Multiple awards also point into the very same direction. Ipsign (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I mean movie DB via links which are already in the article (293 credits in the smallest one is IMO enough to say she is "prolific"). Ipsign (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Porn films are produced quickly and in massive numbers. For that reason, "prolificness" was struck from the PORNBIO in ~2006–2007. Without independent reliable sources that acknowledge this as significant, it does not contribute to notability, especially a claim per WP:ENT. Film databases don't even state significance, never mind prove it. Porn is pervasive, and most of it is unremarkable. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * a) 293 is "prolific" even by porn standards, ergo it satisfies WP:ENT. b) as none of WP:N policies mention "porn" now, saying"porn is pervasive" is not a valid argument; current policies are intentionally written in the way that it doesn't matter whether we are speaking about porn - or about, say, opera; in spite of common prejudices, from WP:N point of view it all qualifies as entertainment, and policies are the same. Ipsign (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Porn is entertainment that largely lacks coverage by independent reliable sources. That's why PORNBIO was taken down and why claims of satisfy WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO generally fail. Notability needs the acknowledgement of independent reliable sources. IMDb doesn't satisfy that requirement for mainstream actors. Wikipedia excused porn from most RS requirements for a long time. That was bad policy. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of any notability unfortunately, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:06, 11 May 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.