Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taija Rae

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. ✗plicit 23:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taija Rae

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

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

Seriously deficient in the sources department. I have no idea how this has survived for so long. The only thing of any merit is an interview so not useful. Fails GNG & ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC for lack of significant reliable secondary coverage. No independent RS support for any claim of passing WP:NACTOR. An independent RS search yields only trivial mentions. This might have passed PORNBIO a long, long time ago, but Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines have come a long way since then. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found one possibly good source, but it's not enough coverage either way. SL93 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2021 (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.