Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Anderssen

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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Anderssen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the notability requirements for pornographic actors. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What requirement do you need? It has many sources. What do you want? JLOPO (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability independent of her own social media profiles and not citeable (is that a word?) to sources beyond that of user submitted sites like IMDB. —Mythdon 07:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody should have to look at this horrific bust... Now seriously, doesn't meet anything. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But wait. Shouldn't an author generally get more time than an hour to establish an article? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. This article has twice been speedy deleted here and here. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP with no reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go look what is the IMDB and the other sources. Are those not reliable. This seems more like personal bias to me. Magnolia677 has a conflict of interest. I have said time and time again what sources would you like but no one responds. Magnolia677 goes and deleted it not even allowing me to finish it. This violates several Wikipedia policies and I will be in contact with an administrator. JLOPO (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What do you want? - JLOPO (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources other than Internet Adult Film Database and the like. Failing that, delete. Jonathunder (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IMDB/RS, IMDb is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. It is a user-generated site which can contain uncaught errors, and has no special inclusion criteria beyond the fact that the person exists — and, in fact, we have caught instances where publicity seekers have faked themselves into IMDb by claiming film and television credits they didn't actually hold, because IMDb doesn't have adequate editorial processes in place to prevent that from happening. So no, the existence of a profile on IMDb does not in and of itself constitute notability for our purposes — and IAFD is subject to all of the exact same problems. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' The sources do not meet reliability guidelines, and Anderssen does not meet the notability guidelines for pornographic actresses. IMDb is explicitly defined as a non-reliable source by our guidelines, at least for purposes of determining if a person is notable. IMDb intends to be a comprehensive directory with articles on everyone, Wikipedia has much lower goals for article breadth, with a resulting goal of seeking to have articles that say something meaningful about the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely clears A7 with no real claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. Lacks coverage by reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Even the porn trade press has nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO, the GNG, and basic BLP requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No strong claim to passing PORNBIO, and no reliable source coverage to support it. No prejudice against recreation in the future if those things change, but nothing written or sourced here now is adequate to get her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 assessment is right; this is a barely sourced BLP with no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.