Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenteal (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenteal

Jenteal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Kept during the bad bad days of PORNBIO but this falls way short of ENT and GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete. I'm amazed this article lasted this long, and I used to subscribe to the rationale behind WP:PORNBIO. This would not have passed any version of the PORNBIO since April 2009. It survived the previous AfD mainly through a PORNBIO criterion dropped in 2007. The sources are crap. Biographical information is sourced from IAFD, IMDb and social media. Porn trade press consists of entries in lists of performers, press releases and interviews. No strong claim of passing
  WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  run-of-the-mill. 5.78.105.24 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the fact that a sub-standard article like this that meets no reasonable notability criteria has existed on Wikipedia for well over a decade gives the project a major black eye. While not quite true any more, it is articles like this that lead to the lament of October 2012, which is that Wikipedia had more articles on pornographic film actresses than on women poets or women journalists, or women lawyers. While some of the lament of October 2012 focuses on issues beyond Wikipedia, having this article is clearly a sign of a problem on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear friend, if Wikipedia had more articles on pornographic film actresses than on women poets or women journalists, or women lawyers, or women biologists, and so on, the problem would rely not in the quality of articles about adult actresses, but in the fact that articles about women poets, or women journalists are too few... Westmanurbe (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Total lack of notability Westmanurbe (talk) 22:49, 9 June 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.