Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Chechik

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 keep. There seems to be just enough consensus that there are sources present to constitute this person passing notability under the general notability guideline. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Chechik

Adriana Chechik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

None of the sources here cut the mustard and winning awards no longer determines notability.. fails gng and ent and we should have better sourcing for a blp Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Neutral She has a few articles where she is the either a major topic, or the sole topic in some fairly large media, but I'm not sure if it's enough to be notable. A profile in GQ India as well as a fairly large mention in this article from Jezebel are both independent of the porn industry. She also has significant routine coverage in the industry magazines. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You don't cut mustard, you spread it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Only if you're classy. Normally I just squeeze it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncles its Tewkesbury Mustard! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• what have post offices got to do with this? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The multiple AVN awards suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This keep entry should be discarded in the final reckoning, as industry awards have been specifically deprecated for porn bios. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I think the GQ article supercedes awards and passes into general notability. Trillfendi (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not have the multiple substantial articles in reliable, indepdent, secondary 3rd-party sources to show a pass of GNG. One article does not cut it for those purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the GQ India piece is a staff article with no byline, and all it is is a reprint of a portion of a Reddit AMA. There is nothing else in the article to support notability of this person. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I can see the reason for the debate but this is well beyond a typical adult actor article in terms of sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be as bad as other shit articles isn’t a policy based keep reason.Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Winning AVN awards for multiple number of times makes her notable. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a completely made up argument. Awards are worthless ever since pornbio was depreceated. Both arguments here pretty much acknowledge this is a GNG fail and no ENT case has been made either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:ENT Clause 2, which this AVN article explains. --w^{L<speak·check>} 01:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AVN writing about porn actors is essentially a press release or advertisement, thus invalud per WP:GNG. Zaathras (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The article is attributed to the Editor in Chief of AVN, categorized as an article in its internal search results (as opposed to a press release), not a profile page, and is literally the cover story of the June 2020 issue. AVN is a WP:RS depending on the specific content that is posted. Not only is this article an RS, but it also undoubtedly establishes GNG. --w^{L<speak·check>} 09:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep The Jezebel article is pretty solid. Mainstream interviews with (Howard Stern) and a few paragraphs in LA Weekly probably push it over. Also there is an article in The Sun on her (though I think we consider The Sun to be not reilable) and a lot of mentions/references in the DailyDot. I also think winning those best actress awards are a sign of notability. Not a home run, but enough IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are genuine awards that confer a real sense of achievement and the Jezebel ref mentioned above is by a senior staff writer, so is RS. A clear keep./ scope_creep^Talk 13:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is indications shown here of RSs out there that cover her for WP:GNG. Also the argument that awards should be discard, or votes that mention multiple awards should be ignore, is completely false. The PORNBIO change did not make significant awards irrelevant, they made it so they weren't to be used to automatically pass a SNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:10, 31 March 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.