Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Lovia

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Lovia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm relying on precedents in previous AfDs and DRVs. Most the sources on this page are from AVN. Lovia has little coverage in WP:RS, or at least no more than other stars who have been consistently found to fail WP:N. So per 2017 precedent in this AfD, backed by this DRV and this AfD, and reiterated in 2019, after WP:PORNBIO was scrapped by RfC, in this AfD and established as speedy delete in this AfD, despite being very popular for the 2nd and 3rd nominations of AfD, as noted at this DRV.

In conclusion, I think sufficient precedent exists to note that this individual is equally notable as the ones consistently found to not meet WP:N. I'd add that she doesn't qualify under receiving awards. She has won none, unlike others that were found to meet deletion policy.

I'd like to add that I don't necessarily agree with deletion of such articles. I feel current Wikipedia policies are skewed to favour removing pornographic actors/actresses, and this skewing creates a weird situation where you have household names that fail to meet the notability policy and are deleted, while some who only meet technical notability remain on Wikipedia with stub articles. Nevertheless, per established policy, I believe this should be deleted. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pornography-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority of sources are adult promotional publications and her career is not much more noteworthy than any other performer.--User19004 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User19004 has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Jack Frost (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- She has appeared in reliable sources and Fortune magazine placed her on 12 most popular port star of 2012. Brief but sustained coverage over the years in reliable sources is a good indicator of notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states the coverage should be significant. Most WP:RS only has her as a passing mention. Like most other pornographic performers, even the most popular ones, she doesn't really have significant coverage in reliable sources. Being Forbes top 12 for 2012 is established as not being significant in prior porno-related reviews. The individual I've mentioned, who was found to fail notability, has similar coverage in top lists, was one of the top searched in 2018 according to a streaming site's annual report (400M views), the top searched in 2019 according to RS industry reports, and had articles with her as the main subject in sources listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources like The Daily Beast, and on sources listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Sources. By comparison, this subject has equal or less coverage as that one, in the same types of sources. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources failed to prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakibim (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As not notable. Wikipedia is not censored. I suppose a bias is that certain subjects are just not covered by reliable sources. Many times a source is not independent which is a requirement. "Brief but sustained coverage" falls short of significant coverage that is also a requirement. Sourcing requirements are, after all, stricter for WP:BLP's. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2020 (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.