Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy San Dimas (2nd nomination)

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) 03:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy San Dimas[edit]

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The previous WP:ANI from a few years ago was closed as delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy San Dimas. How/why was it recreated? This article does not seem any better than it was back then in terms of sourcing and notability. Michepman (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering this article did not pass munster even back when we had the now deprecated pornbio guidelines, it is even more in need of being deleted today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first deleted in 10-18-2010 as it failed the now-gone porn-bio guideline. I don't know how to link to a history but if you go all the way back to creation, it was remade on 10-23-2010 because "multiple years of nominations" was once a passing criteria? Now that that is gone, it has nothing to pass, all the links are to porn websites and interviews, and a mundane bit of coverage over once getting kicked out of a ballgame. Zaathras (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Zaathras: thank you for the context behind the article. I do think it is puzzling that the article was recreated in 2010 without a good rationale or even any attempts to improve it with stronger sourcing. I think a lot of times people evade or just innocently miss the WP:GNG and simply think that finding a source that is about the subject is enough to get it into Wikipedia, even if it's just a link to pornography or an interview with the subject that doesn't demonstrate notability. Michepman (talk) 03:15, 5 December 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.