Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Styles (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Styles

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

Fails pornbio and gng, there is a single source. Also feel this is unbalanced and if it reflects the source then the article is inherantly unsalvagable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, and the writing of the article seems too non-neutral. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a her notability claim seems to be that she was in the industry and then left and then came back, not a unique thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:20, 12 April 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.