Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Alexis

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Alexis

[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)

Sources are inadequate to support notability under WP:BIO Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep About notability of the subject one point is very wonderful for me; the article was published on around 20 other languages on Wikipedia! also there are couple of reliable sources about subject.Ms.bletvok (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a couple of reliable secondary sources with non-trivial coverage, please identify them. Interviews are not considered independent reliable sources. The award citations are trivial coverage. The porn trade articles appear to be republished press releases. Reliable references not present in the article and my own searches did not find anything significant. Presence in other language Wikis is a circular argument. The other language entries appear to be poorly sourced placeholders or direct translations of the en.Wikipedia article using the same poor-quality references. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the independent reliable source coverage needed to pass WP:BASIC. Lacks evidence supporting WP:ENT notability. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 September 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.