Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheridan Love

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. The only keep !vote is a complaint about the nominator, not about whether the article topic is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheridan Love[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Recently created niche award has been determined to be non-notable, and therefore fails the well-known/significant standard by a wide margin. Negligible biographical content. Negligible independent sourcing. Even if the niche award is somehow seen as a technical PORNBIO pass, consensus has been established that a BLP falling so far below GNG requirements should be deleted. PROD removed by article creator without exsplanation or article improvement, just a rude edit summary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The reason is your zeal for deletion of porn-related articles; and if you try to use your usual "casting aspersions" argument, well, you know what? Instead of that argument, prove me wrong. You've never actually denied an anti-porn bias. More importantly, if this article were to be even considered for deletion, the nomination should come from someone more objective. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has such lovely eyes .... but unfortunately we don't keep based on how lovely her ... eyes... look, Anyway non notable porno actress, hasn't won any notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WHYN -- no independent reliable sources sufficient to build an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2016 (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.