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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Extrabladet is a tabloid and not an RS. Everything else is very short coverage of a porn performer presenting a radio show for one week. In no way does this pass GNG or ENT
SpartazHumbug! 06:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Lived in Denmark for 4 years. Was able to read enough of the press to know what was news and what was scandle/gossip rag. @
SpartazHumbug! 15:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: fails
WP:ENT /
WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated & there's nothing better. Sourcing is in passing and / or
WP:SPIP. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)reply
What sources do you think pass gng and why do you think they pass?
SpartazHumbug! 15:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, sources exist - search for them. Especially if the nominator knows the Danish language, one example here
Berlingske "jeg-naar-aldrig-at-taenke-paa-det-som-sex", and they call her "Danmarks mest benyttede pornomodel" (Denmark's most widely used porn model)
[5]Christian75 (
talk) 23:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 07:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
DELETE - Most of the references are fairly trite, and as previously pointed out, tabloid fare. Searches through news come up with these and similar results. A couple of them used the exact same verbiage. She probably isn't completely typical of others in her industry in that she has her own company, and has appeared in some other types of shows but do these things make her notable? We still have the problem of not being able to have a meaningful biography despite these myriad sources.
ogenstein (
talk) 02:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete articles comes up far short of the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep – meets
WP:BASIC/
WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The
WP:THREE are
[6][7][8], and if you don't like EB as an
WP:RS, there's
BT, and if you don't like BT as an
WP:RS, there's
the TV2 documentary, and there are yet more out there (
here's one about whether her Wikipedia article lists her correct weight or not, LOL, I think they have a point: why was weight in the article? Is she like a boxer that has to meet a certain weight class?). –
Levivich 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't think anyone is suggesting that she doesn't exist, just that the type of coverage she receives does not support her having a standalone page. I see some comments as to her meeting
WP:BASIC but when I consider those linked pages, I'm not convinced. The EB piece about her wiki page is trivial. Getting blocked on FB for a month? Less than trivial. TV2 is promoting their product. The three other referenced pieces (6,7,8) all fall under primary accounts and BASIC explicitly states that primary sources can support content but do not contribute to notability.
ogenstein (
talk) 09:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The notability factor is clearly not there no matter how far people try to stretch.
Trillfendi (
talk) 15:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep – She is the protagonist of a
Danish documentary, already cited above by Levivich, on the world of porn in Los Angeles. This one has been broadcasted several times in Italy by
Cielo TV under the title Naked.
Westmanurbe (
talk) 21:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)reply
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.