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. Tone 12:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Soreces are very bad and unreliable: 1)afd, unreliable. 2) interview, doesn't count toward notability as not independent, 3) passing mention, 4) passing mention, 5) interview, 6) porn award which do not count toward notability since pornbio was deprecated, 7) passing mention, 8) interview, 9) passing mention, 10) interview, 11) passing mention, 12) twitter, 13 to 27) porn award nominations. independent research didn't yield any in depth cover of the subject.
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk) 22:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable pronographic performer. The nominator shows the sourcing does not pass GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep an in-depth feature in Men’s Health, quoted by
Newsweek and
Queerty... I’m leaning on keep, it’s certainly not a clear cut case.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 07:53, 13 August 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.