Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmony Rose (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Rose

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. All nominations are scene awards and citations are from vendor or self-published sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Should be swiftly deleted.Finnegas (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first and last three of the sources are AVN covering awards. The other two are primary as well based on interview with the person. Thus this is:
- a WP:BLP without a single relaible source
- a WP:COI violation since the subject has been the source of all the info.
- fails WP:V
Delete Fails PORNBIO - award nominations are few, and are all scene nominations. Only information in article that isn't the nominations is kayfabe about virginity loss. Hipocrite (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple AVN Award nominations suggests some form of notability, which arguably would be strengthened if the nominations were actual award wins. It does not strike me as a WP:BLP violation, or anything close for that matter as the material is all sourced to what appear to be reliable sources. It would be nice to see more substantial coverage but after reviewing the article and the analysis provided by fellow colleagues I am sure that deletion is not the correct answer. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (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.