Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Monroe


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Natalie Monroe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced biography of a former porn actress turned Instagram model. The subject lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources required by WP:BASIC. The article's sources consist of IMDb, multiple minor mentions in a sports blog, an user-sourced wiki and and Amazon listing for a Hustler issue. An independent search for RS coverage yielded only trivial mentions. The only claim to WP:ENT notability is being a popular Instagram model, but RS support is lacking. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I forgot to mention that the article's biographical content neither cites sources nor is supported by the references provided. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: She has a profile on wikiFeet X. Does that count as being notable? She is also on Pornhub. Zoe1013 (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Open wikis like wikiFeet and other WP:USERGENERATED content sites are unacceptable as references for facts or as evidence of notability. Pornhub and the other video sharing sites also count as user generated content.  Beside, nearly every porn performer in existence is on Pornhub.  Just being there doesn't make a performer notable. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: She has a profile on Famous Birthdays and on IMDb via https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6584218/bio Ajpoundz (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSPS, Famous Birthdays is blacklisted as spam. In addition, " There is consensus that Famous Birthdays is generally unreliable. Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, claim to have an editorial team, or claim to perform fact-checking. Do not use this site for information regarding living persons. "  IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information as IMDb biographies are user submitted.  In principle, IMDb has an entry for anyone who has appeard on screen since 1895.  That does not make an entertainer notable. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete based on the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guideline. The actress does not pass our WP:N with no reliable sources to be found. Lightburst (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be low level actor and porno star, without any signigicant work Fails notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete sourcing in article does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. My search reveals no other sources that would help to constitute sigcov. There are a couple of articles at Pro Sports Extra, but their editing standards are unclear and there's nothing from any other other sources that would even remotely help the sourcing to meet the bare minimum of 2 sources. Samsmachado (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Four refs out of six are dud. No effective referencing.   scope_creep Talk  11:10, 27 August 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.