Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyla Foxxx


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Shyla Foxxx

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable actress. Being "profiled along with pornographic actresses Devon and Coral Sands on the show Entertainment Tonight, February 8, 1999" is not a sufficient claim of significance. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NACTOR, WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG and WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree that she fails PORNBIO, but I think she scrapes by on GNG. In addition to the sources in the footnotes, several reliable sources are referenced in the body of the article.  The article desperately needs improvement, but the question is not whether the sources are handled adequately in the article but, rather, do multiple, independent, reliable sources exist at all.  Looking at the face of the article, it appears that they do. I count at least five. David in DC (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The controlling issues is pornographic bio, and this trumps any extremely loose interpretations of GNG, which comes about way too often. Pornographic biography still gives us a way to large number of such articles, and there is no reason to allow additional articles on people who clearly fail it without them strongly passing other guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The controlling issue is notability. The SNG's, like PORNBIO, do not replace GNG. They provide criteria that suggest notability in specific areas, especially in an area like pornography, where genuinely reliable sources are hard to come by.
 * But someone who fails to meet PORNBIO is not automatically non-notable. They still meet GNG if they've garnered significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. And the sources must simply be shown to exist, even if they're not (yet) in the article.
 * Here, we've got evidence of at least five reliable sources covering the subject on the face of the article. It's no a "loose interpretation" of GNG that establishes notability here. A simple, straightforward application of the policy gets us there. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails GNG. An outstanding specimen of the virtually information free PORNBIO genre. I'd venture to say there aren't more than two dozen porn bio subjects would could honestly pass GNG and probably, not accidentally, about the same number of porn bios that aren't vapid crap with pictures. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2018 (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.