Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melena Maria

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Melena Maria}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melena_Maria Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Melena Maria}})

Lack of notability. One of the sources is self published; my library blocks the other two, so I imagine they are porn sites & in the context of a porn actress they count as self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not even asserted and the article's references are unacceptable. Looks like a candidate for A7 speedy to me. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Do not delete. I try to find clean reference but I just see litle information. I try to write simple thing about her. Wikipedia have a lot of simple article. So, don't delete. Now, i think i just want to add an image. She so beautiful. Đông Minh (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

:*The key problem is that the references are self-published and unreliable, not just that they are porn sites. The internet is flooded with porn. Very little of it supports notability. Finally, beautiful does not necessarily mean notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

::*I'm deleted XXX the ref and edited article. The references are self-published it's just for ages, height and weight, not others. Đông Minh (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

:::*You have deleted one source and added IAFD, which constitutes neither a WP:RELIABLE source nor significant coverage for establishing notability. The article no reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

::::* Okay • Gene93k, i'm finish my edit, can you check it again ?, If you feeling it's okay please bring out the sign. Đông Minh (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::*You've traded two unreliable sources for two more unreliable sources, Freeones and Everpedia. Freeones is yet another porn site. Everpedia says, "Any source is valid, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn." The sources cited by Everpedia are PornHub, Babepedia, Twitter, etc. Nothing reliable. You need to find sources with a good reputation for fact checking. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::*I lost many hours for small article, so now, I leave this on your hand, you can do anything. I have a question for you, you check so clean and clear every new page with it's reference, so why english wikipedia have a lot of pages with cite error. Some time I work at page Category:Pages with reference errors, so what you do really ? why ? I'm think you should be spend your time at this page, we have many numper pages with reference errors 15,929 article in total Đông Minh (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::*There are many different tasks in maintaining and improving Wikipedia. Among other things, I monitor the porn project for new articles and articles that may be deleted. This article came up under both categories. I also review drafts at Articles for creation and loosely follow AfD. Finally pages with technical references errors is not the same as pages without reliable references, where my efforts tend to fall. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::::*Hi • Gene93k, sometime I see little page (in Category:Pages with reference errors) have only one reference and that's reference is a cite error: Cite error: The named reference "example" was invoked but never defined. So now I ask you ? If I delete all reference in Melena Maria, it's will have red ink with error, will you accept my article ? Because it just a page have reference no content. Đông Minh (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::*At the risk of getting too far into WP:WAX, if all the references are broken, first you try to fix or replace them so long as reliable sources are available. That's why reference errors are classified as potentially surmountable maintenance issues. Let's focus on this case where reliable source coverage does not appear to be available. Deleting or breaking the references would only compound the notability/verifiability problems and make the article an unsourced BLP (also grounds for deletion). • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::: • Gene93k alright, do not lost your time, delete it. we stop here. have a good day ! Đông Minh (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: does not meet relevant notability guidelines; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. We have notability guidelines for porn talent at WP:PORNBIO, which the subject does not meet. Ifnord (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with the above !voters that reliable sources are lacking, making this a WP:BLP issue. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ENT JC7V (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.