Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gen Padova

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Padova

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

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO as she has not won any awards (only nominations), no indication that she is discussed in non-industry publications. Risker (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not seeing the necessary coverage for a blp. Primary sources like interviews are not going to cut it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. So what if she isn't "discussed in non-industry publications"? Show me where it says that an individual must have coverage outside of their industry in order to meet GNG. I am not aware of such a guideline existing. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does she pass GNG? There is nothing extraordinary about her in any way, only industry publications, largely promotional. Risker (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sourcing seems to be interviews and the like. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. There's only one source that isn't outright kayfabe or PR material, and that one is dubious in those regards, and falls far short of the coverage needed to establish notability for a BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2014 (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.