Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nautica Thorn (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that there are not enough suitable reliable sources available to meet notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nautica Thorn
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notable porn performer failing pornbio and gng, there are a bunch of interviews but the publications appear non notable and interviews are a primary source and do not confer notability. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No awards won, no multiple features in notable mainstream media. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as having a weekly show is its own source of notability. Well beyond the last few. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Really can you tell me where you found that rule in policy and what reliable sources you are relying on?Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I found (easily) a New York Times article sourcing her being on My Bare Lady. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * in its entireity the nyt article says this about thorn Nautica Thorn, 22, from Hawaii, has the most exotic look in the contect of a brief article about some reality show. In no way can that justify a finding of notability. Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The mix of sources on the page, some say more, some say less. This one says less but is high level. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Its a GNG fail but lets leave some space for other editors to work on this? Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Make a draft of this? Hyperbolick (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant more that we should shut up and let other users comment on the merits of this article. :-) Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see our discussion would affect one way or the other. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- sources are unsuitable for a BLP while mainstream appearances are trivial. Being a host of a weekly show is not a sufficient presumption of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real argument that the subject passes PORNBIO. The sourcing is mostly substandard, and the cursory RS mentions are far from enough to sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inadequate indicia of actual notability.  Montanabw (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2017 (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.