Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Snow

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 keep. Consensus that the subject passes WP:JOURNALIST is clear. WP:N says

Aurora Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(Viewlog · [1]):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly discussed in enough depth in good sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough indepth coverage to establish notability, it is just passing checks of existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I’m normally pretty sceptical of porn articles because they send to fall victim to link spam from adult industry blogs (many of which are unreliable or are just interviews), this one does seem to fit within the GNG. The subject is covered in mainstream publications like the New York Times and the Daily Beast and many of these sources cover her in significant levels of detail. This might be the rare porn star that has solid coverage from WP:RS. Michepman (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That is a very wide and diverse collection of sources there and there is more. I just cannot see how it is case for delete in any scenario. scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Does not meet GNG, or at least, I can't find WP:THREE sources. The New York Times link [2] is just a director listing saying she was in Superbad; that's trivial, not GNG. The Daily Beast links don't count for notability because she's a writer for the Daily Beast. Articles written by her, and articles written about her by her co-workers, are not independent and thus don't count for notability. The Daily Dot is an interview transcript; also not independent (those are the subject's words, not the journalist's). AVN and other industry coverage is also not independent and doesn't meet WP:AUD. I'm not seeing any sources that meet GNG, or anything else supporting NAUTHOR or NACTOR. – Levivich 03:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audience or WP:AUD under WP:ORG is not a restriction on the notability of people nor a determination of a source's reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - throwing out the Daily Beast articles that's written by her, she still passes the GNG. The Daily Dot article includes a biographical paragraph about her in the journalist's voice prefacing the interview. MSN Australia and The Independent wrote about Snow and one of her articles here. [3][4]. Actually her articles are frequently cited by reliable sources satisfying WP:JOURNALIST.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Non-trivial mention in the New York Times, establishing notability: [12] (This is different than the other NYT link Levivich links to above) Samboy (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The articles about her do not meet GNG. She hardly receives significant coverage, for instance, in the NYT article referenced by Samboy and I agree with Levivich on other sources. The only thing giving me pause is Morbid's claim that she qualifies under NJORUNALIST. I think there's a reasonable case to be made there though some of the sources are better (The Week) than others (NY Post). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that none of the many sources linked in this article satisfy GNG because they're either brief mentions, not independent, or they're quoting her work but not talking about her as a person. I also agree that a case can be made that the subject meets NJOURNALIST. If I believed that meeting an SNG without meeting GNG was sufficient to keep an article, then I'd say "keep, meets NJOURNALIST", but because I feel that an article that meets an SNG but doesn't meet GNG should be deleted, I'm staying with my delete !vote. – Levivich 19:28, 13 December 2019 (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.