Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misti Dawn (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misti Dawn

[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)

Doesn't seem to pass

WP:BIO through a Google Book and News search Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May be grounds for a G4 speedy due to the previous deletion Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last deletion was 2010 and the (only) ref in the article is from 2014, so it would not qualify as a straight G4. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find very little on news or in books on this subject, and thus a fail of GNG. Never seemed to reach any great notability even within her industry (e.g. no Hall of Fame or evidence of major following etc.) for NACTOR. Straight delete. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substantially unsourced BLP with only the most minimal assertion of notability. Even the LA Weekly reference is unsure about its facts. Independent search for RS coverage comes up empty. No real claim of passing
WP:BASIC without substantial sources. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 22 July 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.