Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodie Moore

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. ✗plicit 23:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Moore

[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)

Not notable as a porn performer based on these sources and political career (such as it is,) hasn't led to any wins. So fails ENT and Politician Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Not sure how reliable the political candidate reference is? As far as I can see, subject:

did NOT run for Lord Mayor of Brisbane in 2004.^[1]
did NOT run for the Australian Senate in 2004,^[2] NOR 2007,^[3] NOR 2001,^[4] but may have in other years?

References

Delete Even if she had run, she wouldn't be notable as a politician unless she suceseeded in winning election. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding anything that can help her qualify under WP:GNG in my sourcing tools. Missvain (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not consider the coverage mentioned within the article as significant coverage as the sources mentioned do not already address the topic directly and in detail - some mentions appear trivial. I also find some of the sources to be questionable as the Adult Film Database has no editorial oversight and IMDB is user generated.’ I also do not think the subject of this article meets the proposed notability requirements for politics, however given that is a proposed guideline only, I have considered this as a secondary factor in my decision. My primary assertion is that due to the lack of significant coverage as stated, the article subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any other relevant criteria that would allow the article to remain, and so it should be deleted. - Such-change47 (talk) 07:58, 23 December 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.

[1] ttps://www.tallyroom.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2004-BCC-results.pdf

[2] ttps://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/SenateCandidatesBySurname-12246-M.htm

[3] ttps://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/SenateCandidatesBySurname-13745-M.htm

[4] ttps://results.aec.gov.au/10822/Website/index.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]