Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Santhiago


 * 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Monica Santhiago

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT. and the GNG; no nonpromotional GNews hits, only pertinent GBooks hit is an astonishingly subliterate self-published collection of porn video summaries. No significant reliable sourcing. The claimed "Erotika Video Award" fails the well-known/significant standard and has no substantial coverage, while neither the title for which the subject supposedly won the award, nor her reported costar, appears to exist outside of Wikipedia or its mirrors. Article created by immediately-vanishing SPA. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 07:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete solid, reliable sourcing is important in every article, but absolutely vital in BLPs, and extremely essential in porn-related articles. I'm not at all convinced that acceptable sources exist for this person. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:11, 15 March 2012 (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.