Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candi Cain

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 speedy delete. I've deleted as there is enough evidence to suggest this was a hoax article created as an attack page. Epbr123 (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candi Cain[edit]

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

Article appears to be a hoax. I can't find any sources to support the statements in the article, and the "references" were dead links on the day they were added. Even if it was true, the article probably wouldn't pass WP:BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. References provided don't check out. Searches come up with nothing, not even an IMDb or IAFD entry. Even if this is not a hoax, the subject fails WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably either a hoax or attack page. Epbr123 (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I searched http://archive.org for candicain.com. The website was in existence from late 2000 to Sept. 2004, so this isn't a hoax article per se. I was able to find a few copies of her About Me page in the archive. Is it ok to change the link in the article for Candicain.com to the archive.org About Me page? -Stillwaterising (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it's the same Candi Cain. The person in the article has a different birth location, and would have been 14 years old in 2000. There are a few porn stars called Candy Cane, but none of them match the description in the article. Epbr123 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax that should be speedied. Qworty (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this article is slander of an actual person. -Stillwaterising (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD-G10 or G3, depending on on what level we want to assume a level of "existence". Still, no good. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I would non-admin close and tag, but policy is specific that non-admins cannot close an AfD is there is any instance of CSD as the reason. If the nominating user returns this can be withdrawn, which would then allow a CSD-G10. In the meanwhile I'm going to blank the page below the tags and leave an edit summary. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2009 (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.