- 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. Kurykh ( talk) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sammy Braddy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spammy, non notable. Nice use of reputable sources that dont mention to subject at all to make the article look notable when they aren't Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Take away the bogus citations and the Page 3-style pictorials and there remains only one non-trivial article from an online magazine of unknown reliability. Independent searches for sources yield more photos, not significant coverage. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 17:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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. Kurykh ( talk) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sammy Braddy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spammy, non notable. Nice use of reputable sources that dont mention to subject at all to make the article look notable when they aren't Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Take away the bogus citations and the Page 3-style pictorials and there remains only one non-trivial article from an online magazine of unknown reliability. Independent searches for sources yield more photos, not significant coverage. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 17:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.