Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Brielle

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. MBisanz ^talk 10:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Brielle

Summer Brielle (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)

Completely fails

• Delete per nom and per the logic of my original PROD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely no indicia of notability. Fails NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No claim of notability per WP:PORNBIO. A search yielded some in-house girl-of-the-month awards/nominations. Also fails GNG. Reliable source coverage lacks depth and is focused on a minor event. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources so does not pass
  WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as not solidly notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the coverage received by this woman according to sources in this article is comparable to many female biographies which have survived AfD.
  SSTflyer 09:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In other words, I think this amount of coverage is enough for this to pass
    SSTflyer 05:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • As for how the coverage is focused on one event:
    SSTflyer 05:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I'm not sure whether you are serious or not? Warning signs that you are not - showing us sources from the

Daily Star, referring to a pornstar as an "actress" AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Fails both PORNBIO and the GNG. The articles about the comments from stupid fans doesn't have enough much about her life and career and is more clickbait type coverage. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2016 (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.