Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali Sudhra

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Sudhra

[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)

Non-notable porn actor. scope_creep^Talk 18:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when IAFDB is your best source then notability is a real issue. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humbug! please check my comment below and new sources. Chelokabob (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage by independent reliable sources, thus failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. Spartaz's point is well taken. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k please check my comment below and new sources. Chelokabob (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search brought up some good citations, including LA Weekly review and ranking. I have improved the article with more citation and info, including from salon.com, Xbiz, Filmmaker Magazine, DESIblitz, and Refinery29. Chelokabob (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chelokabob:None of these new references meet the standard as significant coverage by independent reliable sources. LA Weekly: sponsored promotional content ("Want to be featured here? See our OnlyFans promotion packages.") XBIZ: repackaged press releases (promotional, not independent). DESIblitz: interview (primary source). Salon: quote from the subject (trivial). Filmmaker Magazine: trivial mention. Refinery29: extended quote from subject. The DESIblitz interview indicates possible greater than zero notability, but it's not useful by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I had not seen the sponsored tag on the LA Weekly article, but it is not evident if the article was not done by LA Weekly writers independently, ranking the actress in the top 25 and even if it was provided by OnlyFans, still it doesn't change the fact that someone has ranked this person in their Top 25 listing. Plus there are still plenty other citations of her, so I'll stick to my keep vote based on that. Chelokabob (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source provided above is trivia, still not good enough. VladimirBoys (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock struck, Sandstein 11:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey there fellows! Spanish Wikipedia's Wikiproject Sexuality user here. I think you must keep in mind that most of Sudhra's activism was done in Spain, and it's referenced in Spanish media, so you should count it at the time of the deletion decision. She was interviewed and referenced in two Spanish magazines (1, 2), in Primavera Sound's official radio (3), in catalan Ara newspaper(4), she has co-written a book about being a migrant sex worker (5) and also she was noticed for her sex education work in a Mexican magazine (6). Maybe she's not the best known sex worker in the world, but, keeping in mind also Erika Lust's speech on her, plenty of compliments (7, 8), I think she deserves the article.--Su Neutralidad (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently presented Spanish-language sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not believe that interviews amount to all that much, as they are primary sources. They can be used to support content in an article, but are not a marker of notability. I see nothing in the non-English sources provided that would swing this to a keep. Zaathras (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed with Zaathras. Unless interviews provide substantial coverage of the subject from the interviewer they cannot contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Su Neutralidad, the Ara article is walled. Aside from that, the only plausibly independent and non-trivial coverage comes from the Metal magazine article. The mujermexico.com article coverage consists of brief mentions and the remaining articles are interviews of the subject or Erika Lust, an associate of the subject, not independent. • Gene93k (talk) 06:55, 25 November 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.