Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Sinz

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]

Ricky Sinz[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 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]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENT.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 3 May 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.