Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Tiger

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Tiger

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

This is a biography that has no reliable sources and therefore fails WP:BLP and WP:V. It is essentially based on an article from IAFD. According to the relevant wikiproject WP:P*, that website "attempts to be the adult film equivalent of the IMDb ... Their filmographies are considered reliable, but not their biographies." As concerns the other two references, one is dead and the other leads to a PDF in which the subject is only mentioned by name. This means we do not have sufficient verifiable content on which a biography of this person can be based. (In case anybody wonders why I'm nominating this article in particular, it's because my attention was drawn to it by Ticket:2010082710000201). Sandstein 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She passes WP:PORNBIO. What were the objections raised via the OTRS? If Angela Tiger is requesting her article be deleted, then it should be. Epbr123 (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections against the article were raised via OTRS. The issue here is not notability, but primarily the verifiability of any biographical information. Sandstein 04:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep per WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me: Even if the subject is notable per that guideline based on any awards she has won, the article must still be deleted per WP:BLP because there does not seem to be not enough verifiable material about the person in existence. Sandstein 10:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAFD is reliable enough to at least confirm she exists. Other reliable but trivial sources are available on Google which also confirm her existance. Epbr123 (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the current article and sources, we can verify that a person of that stage name exists and was nominated for one award. That is not enough to be the basis of an article about a living person. No other fact about her, including basics such as real name and age, are verifiable. Sandstein 15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO, which applies only to performers, and should be read as limited to performance-related awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's slightly wikilawyering. A porn star with nominations for both performing and directing would be rarer and more notable than a porn star with a couple of nominations for performing. Epbr123 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be inadequate sourcing to support a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Andrew Lenahan. Also quite clearly fails WP:PORNBIO, as already said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (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.