Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper Perri

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Perri

Piper Perri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

In spite of remarkable levels of Internet celebrity, she appears to fail to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. The original Spanish-language article is based mostly on a single interview in adultdvdtalk.com, which Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography characterizes as a self-published site. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just enough notability asserted to avoid an A7 speedy. No claim of WP:BASIC or WP:ENT notability supported by available RS coverage. An independent search yielded only trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I just did a basic cleanup on the article. The AVN citation I added is an obvious press release, with no effect on notability. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At this time, Perri doesn’t meet notability guidelines to have an article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability guideline. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nominator.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no assertion of notability and no RS per a BEFORE. —Kbabej (talk) 20:33, 15 February 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.