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: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.

talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

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]
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.
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.