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.
Michig (
talk) 07:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Only claim of notability is millions of views on a porn site. No claim of passing
WP:PORNBIO. No independent reliable sources cited or found in search to support
WP:GNG.
• Gene93k (
talk) 04:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The article lacks any references to reliable sources, thus failing our core content policy of
verifiability. No evidence is offered that she meets our
General notability guideline, and none that she meet
WP:PORNBIO, which I consider too lenient, but at least creates the basis for a real debate.
Biographies of living people have stringent standards, which this article fails. This person exists, performs in adult videos, but is not now a notable person.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or Speedy delete under
WP:A7. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any assertion of importance or significance. —
MShabazzTalk/Stalk 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - A7 - No importance or credible significance. –
Davey2010Talk 12:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: she is notable enough to be exluded from A7. —usernamekiran
(talk) 01:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I disagree - She isn't notable enough at all. A7 IMHO still applies. –
Davey2010Talk 09:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. No reliable references whatsoever, fails notability guidelines. -★-PlyrStar93. →
Message me. ← 04:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails GNG. This run of the mill porn bio is noteworthy only for the lack of a glossy photograph, which most of the crap of this nature is built around.
Carrite (
talk) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (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.
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.
Michig (
talk) 07:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Only claim of notability is millions of views on a porn site. No claim of passing
WP:PORNBIO. No independent reliable sources cited or found in search to support
WP:GNG.
• Gene93k (
talk) 04:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The article lacks any references to reliable sources, thus failing our core content policy of
verifiability. No evidence is offered that she meets our
General notability guideline, and none that she meet
WP:PORNBIO, which I consider too lenient, but at least creates the basis for a real debate.
Biographies of living people have stringent standards, which this article fails. This person exists, performs in adult videos, but is not now a notable person.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or Speedy delete under
WP:A7. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any assertion of importance or significance. —
MShabazzTalk/Stalk 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - A7 - No importance or credible significance. –
Davey2010Talk 12:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: she is notable enough to be exluded from A7. —usernamekiran
(talk) 01:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I disagree - She isn't notable enough at all. A7 IMHO still applies. –
Davey2010Talk 09:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. No reliable references whatsoever, fails notability guidelines. -★-PlyrStar93. →
Message me. ← 04:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails GNG. This run of the mill porn bio is noteworthy only for the lack of a glossy photograph, which most of the crap of this nature is built around.
Carrite (
talk) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (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.