Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Killian

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. RL0919 (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Killian[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)

Clear failure of GNG with exactly zero reliable sources counting to GNG showing in the footnotes. This bio appears to have been kept under auspices of the now-deprecated Special Notability Guideline for pornographic actors. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per revamped WP:PORNBIO. Also, obviously, no reliable sources.--Darwinek (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor. We have far too many articles on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not know that PORNBIO had been deprecated in favour of judging porn actors directly against regular ENT criteria, but I'm pleased that it has — it's always been used to try to draw a circle of protection around porn actors who couldn't actually show any acceptable sourcing for their notability claims at all. And this is one of them: not a single footnote present in this entire article would have been acceptable in a BLP of a mainstream actor at all: directories, YouTube clips, blogs and primary sources all. If somebody wants to create their own separate WikiPorn for Wikipedia-style articles about porn actors, be my guest — but Wikipedia has to maintain encyclopedic standards of notability and referenceability. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I looked for new sources and didn't find anything of BLP quality. Cheers, gnu 57 05:02, 4 November 2019 (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.