Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Willis

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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know on my talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Willis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Emily Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pornographic actress. Interview in equally non-notable venues do not establish notability, nor does an AVN award or nomination, as WP:PORNBIO no longer exists. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete plenty of coverage from Xbiz, which is semi-RS, but nothing found elsewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She's covered in the Daily Star with the typical fluffy headlines they publish, nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable actress who doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. All cited sources are not independent or reliable, including 2 interviews, IMDB, Internet Adult Film Database and a mention from AVN. I orginally PRODed this, however it was contested by Inwind (courtesy ping). Thanks to the nominator who brought this to AfD. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I added two refs which should be sufficient to establish notability. Inwind (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of those references is the WP:DAILYSTAR, a deprecated (junk) source that got the edit flagged by the system. Italian GQ might be useful, as it is the only plausibly good reference on the entire page. Notability not yet established. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • added more reliable source - notability established. Inwind (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The Canal+ source just added lacks independence. It's a promotional write up of the channel's own content. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning move to draft to provide the usual six month window for the article to improve enough to meet WP:AFC approval, or die of abandonment. Not currently in the article, the subject receives a passing mention for appearing in a more-or-less vanilla modelling catalog, and is apparently involved in some industry drama that would be notable if coverage leaked into more conventional news. BD2412 T 21:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "The accompanying lookbook features adult actresses including Emily Willis, Scarlit Scandal, Rara Knupps, Ski Bri and Lil Larimar." count for anything, notability-wise? I'm not sure even "passing mention" captures the essence of the brevity there. Zaathras (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for most pornographic actors the discussion comes down whether XBIZ and AVN are reliable sources ? And does the deletion of WP:PORNBIO mean that pornographic awards are no longer valid awards? Is there a discussion on it which I have missed. Inwind (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PORNBIO was formally deprecated at this RfC in 2019. Even before that, porn awards stopped being counted for notability absent RS support. As for for AVN and XBIZ, it is important to identify who is speaking, distinguishing news reporting from promotional fluff. The XBIZ reference just added is 1) XBIZ tooting his own horn and 2) an interview. It is not independent secondary source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with my comments above. One plausibly good source is not enough to pass WP:BASIC nor WP:ENT. An independent search for sources yielded only more press releases and tabloid fluff. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The refs include promotional non-SIGCOV press releases (i.e., And yes, from very chaste Mormon morality to porn, there is a huge gap that the beautiful Emily has decided to jump), interview, and annoucements on minor awards. My search didn't find WP:SIGCOV-meeting sources so this clearly fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR. VickKiang (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emily_Willis&oldid=1128789633"