Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dillion Harper

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dillion Harper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails gng and pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is not the right place to establish policy about a class of BLP for whom the subject is likely to have a career of three years. It is absolutely irrelevant to the English language Wikipedia whether a sister article exists in other languages or their quality. It is a case of circular logic to base an article on other wikis, none of which are reliable. Rhadow (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't have a single reliable source, and I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources in Google, either. The only significant coverage I could find was this interview entirely about shaving pubic hair. I don't know if Popsugar counts as a reliable source. Their "about us" is all about marketing, but their jobs section does list some editorial positions. I did also find a couple of brief mentions regarding her wishing "happy birthday" to a Mexican YouTuber, Google Translate messing with her name, being one of the top 5 most searched for porn actresses on Pornhub, and this listicle of 10 popular porn actresses. But those are all pretty low-quality, and I don't think there's enough depth to satisfy the GNG. -- irn (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without significant award wins. Fails WP:BASIC without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The references in the article are not reliable. Independent searching yields only trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the clearly spelled out criteria for notability in this profession. As it is those criteria are overly broad and generally considered to be one of the weakest parts of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: I think you got this criteria confused with WP:NSPORTS. I always think sports/athlete criteria is overly broad, and one of the weakest of enwiki. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not. Pornographic biography overbroad criteria have regularly been attacked as a major sign of how anti-women Wikipedia is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(vote deleted)

*The Nightmoves Award falls short of the "well-known and significant industry award" criterion for WP:PORNBIO and the win lacks coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin to note that the 3 logged out edits are Rudra Tenio Chakraborty The ANI report is at [[1]] Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has deleted the suspected !votes admitting they were socks. • Gene93k (talk

Delete Even though I somewhat like her, especially her POV videos; she fails WP:PORNBIO, and unfortunately WP:GNG as well. Maybe in the future. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too much information mate. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: bwahaha! Your response made my day ma man! On a serious note, she looks very cute. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO Atlantic306 (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2018 (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.