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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 14:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to substantiate nor prove article’s subject is notable hence fails WP:GNG. Most of the statements do not have a source and there is hardly any source reported.
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk) 13:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - there are several sources, of which reliability is arguable.
Bearian (
talk) 00:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian: If the source's reliability is arguable why should we keep it? I can see four sources, one of which is reliable but not good enough to prove notability. the other 3 sources are an interview, a blog and something that sounds much more as an advertise than anything else. --
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk) 09:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
None of the 4 references qualify as reliable secondary sources. The porn trade press articles are repackaged press releases. The gay.com article is consulting the subject as a contributor/guide for the local scene. The performer of the year cite is one of the studio's principals reporting an in-house award in his self-published blog. An independent search for RS coverage yields trivial mentions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 14:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:ENT without reliable sources to support any notability claims. The article is rich in promotional fluff but barren of reliable references.
• Gene93k (
talk) 14:22, 30 April 2020 (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.