Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alina Plugaru

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 (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 06:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Plugaru

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

Unless we've started counting "The Romanian Erotic Industry Awards", this performer fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Without being able to read the text of the Romanian-language sources, I am concerned that they may not be reliable (based only on a general impression of the sites). It would be nice if someone could confirm that the sources are reliable and that the information in the article actually appears in the sources. Otherwise, it should probably be stubbed if kept. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've thought about pulling the trigger on this article myself, but whenever I struggle through a sample of the surprisingly many GNews hits via Google Translate (which is only marginally literate for the language involved), I come to the conclusion that she's a second-or third-rate Romanian Jenna Jameson, who's somehow managed to cross over into the mainstream media. The article is rather lousy, and the awards aren't enough to satisfy PORNBIO, but there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Someone more familiar with the language and sources might be able to reach a better informed conclusion otherwise, which would hardly distress me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Hullaballoo. Awards appears too weak to satisfy PORNBIO, but she received tons of secondary coverage in reliable sources to easily pass GNG requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable as an entrepreneur. The website listed indicates that this is still an active star. Does not seem to have a single WP:RS required for a WP:BLP. This is therefore clearly a non notable PornBio listed here to sell movies and promote her web site. BO; talk 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are you so certain that Click! and Libertatea are not reliable? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are listed as tabloids and when tabloids publish online they are not particularly stringent about checking their facts - so you just conviced me - thanks! BO; talk 17:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look up the article on tabloid based on that ignorant statement. "Tabloid" refers to the format of those newspapers, not their reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Woodman is a identifying reliable sources? If the answer is yes, then read the next review! http://www.woodmanforum.com/girls/alina-plugaru-t1040.html#p45534 Jonathan Archer (talk)

Keep - Reviewing the references indicates that the subject seems to pass the GNG with the Romanian newspaper coverage. The possible consideration of a subject under a specific notability guideline does not exclude consideration under the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2012 (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.