Deletion of Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination)

Comment: Person meets the  criteria. She ''has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Fails , it has been the third time since this article has been PROD, and in the second one, (rticles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (2nd nomination)|Gabriella Fox (2nd nomination)), DELETE consensus was reached, however an admin did not close the AfD properly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO||WP:A)

Comment: per meeting  and in agreement that the deprecated PORNBIO does not somehow make other notability guidelines obsolete.  If a person can be determined to meet BIO through GNG, then we have a keeper.  We do not claim lack of intellectual independence when sources who make their incomes off of coverage of mainstream films (such as ''Variety (magazine)'', ''Film Threat'', ''DVD talk'', ''Backstage'' etal) write about those mainstram films, as such is the genre expertise and reliability we seek and expect. Acceptability as a |reliable source is dependent upon editorial oversite and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy... and not upon what topic is being reported.  We do not expect nor demand that mainstream sources focus on porn actors, and we '''DO''' accept that the established primary |reliable sources for the porn industry can write about the porn industry.  To the GNG, these genre experts have |written of this person multiple times.http://business.avn.com/articles/Digital-Playground-Showcases-Gabriella-Fox-54295.html AVN(1) http://business.avn.com/articles/Digital-Playground-Signs-Gabriella-Fox-27839.html AVN(2) http://business.avn.com/articles/Gabriella-Fox-Takes-Babe-of-the-Week-Title-from-Carmen-Electra-53290.html AVN(3) http://business.avn.com/articles/An-Interview-with-Gabriella-Fox-52904.html http://www.xbiz.com/news/97522 AVN(4) http://www.xbiz.com/news/97522 XBIZ(1) http://www.xbiz.com/news/video/95513 XBIX(2) http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?id=91330&mi=all&q=javors XBIX(3)  But also toward meeting the GNG, we surpisingly do have coverage in non-porn mainstram sources.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/08/student-hosted-porn-screening-threatens-college-funding/ Fox News http://www.lanacion.cl/pelicula-porno-con-actriz-chilena-gana-prestigioso-premio/noticias/2009-10-21/214345.html La Nacion http://www.tercera.cl/contenido/30_51531_9.shtml La Tercera http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/268119 Digital Journal http://www.purepeople.com/article/photos-exclusives-la-superbe-vanessa-williams-vous-presente-sa-fille_a16631/1 Pure People http://www.vanguardia.com/historico/7670-metalica-se-prepara- Vanguardia Liberal http://www.ecranlarge.com/article-details-12462.php Écran Large http://show.oboz.ua/news/pornografiya-stanovitsya-vyisokobyudzhetnoj-i-vyisokotehnologichnoj.htm Новости шоу бизнеса http://www.destak.pt/artigo/14282 Destak http://www.yoki.ru/relations/sex/18-09-2008/65713-pron-0/ Yoki Seems reasonable to have the stub expanded some with these aditional sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails . Being the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject would be necessary, but not sufficient to establish notability. Here, tho, we need not get that far. Agree with nominator's analysis. These aren't intellectually independent reliable sources. Clear away the promotional dreck and press kit stuff and you're left with references to the cast list for one film
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per Schmidt. The sources he dug up satisfy |GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Her filmography is enough to let me be confident about my Keep say here. Subject meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)