Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacie Heart

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. Sandstein 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacie Heart

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

A BLP that lacks significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. No awards; just nominations. No significant impact on the genre. The article is cited to interviews, industry publicity materials and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search for sources doesn't bring up anything other than gossipy tabloid fodder. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. No where near notable. In the past Wikipedia has been severaly criticized for having way too many articles on pornographic actresses, and way to few on female writers, journalists, lawyers, doctors and judges. The situation has somewhat improved on all fronts, although it probably could use some work. However do to the nature of heavy promotion in pornography we need to remain vigilant against articles on non-notable performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert This is probably outside the scope for this AfD, but I generally give WP:PORNBIO short shrift, and consider WP:GNG and WP:BLP instead, and perhaps it's time to retire that criteria gracefully? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a retirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:28, 29 October 2017 (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.