Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sindee Jennings (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sindee Jennings

[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)

This was nominated for speedy G4, but it has considerably more content and references than it had when deleted previously, so I think it would need another AfD. Beyond that, I have no opinion whatsoever. Whoever closes this, please do not consider my nomination as a !vote for delete or a !vote against deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this for G4, which was declined because of new references. Still lacking in non-trivial independent reliable references needed to pass
WP:ENT. Several porn award nominations, but porn nominations were deprecated from WP:BIO in 2014 as not credible indicators of notability. Other wikis indicate a NightMoves win, but that award failed the "well-known and significant industry award" criteria of PORNBIO. The article is basically a filmography rendered both as prose and as list, where the bulk of the references back up the only film appearances. A more detailed breakdown of sources: 1. IAFD - non-significant coverage; 2. Texas Confidential: trivial listing; 3. Do androids sleep...: cast listing (trivial mention); 4. XBIZ: promotional press release - not independent; 5. AVN: cast listing; 6. adultfilmdatabase.com: neither reliable nor significant; 7. AVN: trivial mention of cast members; 8. AVN: trivial mention in apparent press release; 9. AVN: cast listing in promotional press release.; 10. adultchamber.com: press release/business directory listing; 11. XBIZ: promotional press release; 12. IMDb: cited for porn award nominations. Independent searches for reliable sources come up with nothing substantial. No real change in notability since it was deleted in 2014. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete if it does not meet the criteria So I created the article in good faith and don't mind if it gets deleted. After some discussions linked by
WP:ANYBIO fail without support of independent reliable sources. Nearly every such appeal since 2019 has failed at AfD. " so why is no one doing an RfC to update the Guidelines to prevent this issue? --Cs california (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails
WP:GNG Devoke water 10:41, 4 April 2021 (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.