Deletion of Mia Banggs

Comment: as rewritten, article now provides sourcing in compliance with  and meets  BIO guidelines as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:PORN)

Comment: Number of films in a genre ''can'' contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see ) and the prolificness of their work and can be used ''in conjunction with'' more valid criteria of either  or  to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn ''in general'', or anything else for that matter, as Googling her gets under 400 hits. I get more relevant hits if I Google ''my'' name (real name, not WP name), and I'm not notable enough for a WP article. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and  while such sites may be used as sources ''in conjunction with'' other |reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites ''alone'' are not acceptable as reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PORNBIO||WP:BIO||WP:ATT)

Comment: per failure to satisfy  and per LaMenta. The "100 films" criterion is disputed as an easy way to obtain a Wikipedia article as free advertising for a porn performer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: She is notable by the fact that she has appeared in over 100 movies, as stated in .  states 'modern American heterosexual performers are usually notable if they appear in more than 100 films'. The article had reliable sources proving that she is a prolific pornstar. That is all that is needed. There is nothing written in the article that isn't sourced. The  criteria are derived from results of past AfD discussions which shows that precedants have been set. I've seen many articles like this at AfD discussions and they've always been kept. There are many less notable porn stars than her on Wikipedia. This is clearly not just a vanity article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO||WP:PORNBIO||WP:PORNBIO)