Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Sun

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. m.o.p 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Sun

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG. No awards or nominations reported; no relevant GNews/GBooks hits; no reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with this one. 4 mid-references + very strong external links + acting for Marc Dorcel, and there fore keep. Alex^{discussion ★} 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: look at the categories: Female pornographic film actors; and Pornographic actor stubs, a lot of actors inluded in these categories haven't recieved any valuable porn awards, but many of them are notable for their general notabillity. Alex^{discussion ★} 13:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Alex. Askadaleia (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No policy- or guideline-based reasons expressed against deletions. The "vers strong external links" comment is particularly off-base, since one of the two links is nonfunctional -- the subject doesn't even seem to have an IMDB listing! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, I've just repaired that link. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet notability for Pornographic actors and models, never won an award, has not unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, etc. --Saladacaesar (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But, she acted in more than 35 films! 91.148.87.249 (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: acting carrier with 37 films, she has a profile at IAfD. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO without awards or acknowledged special contributions to porn. Fails WP:GNG without coverage by reliable sources. The 4 references in the article don't qualify as reliable and provide trivial coverage at best. As for the keep arguments, acting in X number of porn films doesn't establish notability. (37 films is not a remarkable number in porn.) WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument either. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom: fails every guideline, being part of the Offertes A Tout Vol. 12 cast does not qualify anyone as notable. And, as said above by Gene93k, 37 films is a small number of titles for a porn actress. --Cavarrone (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Gene93k. Failure to meet GNG. 37 videos is not a high number in the pornographic industry and setting the notability standard so low would open the floodgates to 100s of stub articles about people who have appeared in a similarly small number of videos. JoshyDinda (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2011 (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.