Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Parker

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Parker[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. PROD tendentiously removed without explanation, article improvement, or meaningful edit summary by the usual disruptive suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO 7 GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been nominated multiple times. Just because she hasn't won shouldn't be grounds for deletion. She has performed in numerous movies and is well known in the industry. STOP DELETING ARTICLES SIMPLY FOR THE SAKE OF DELETING THEM!!! Hobbamock (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbamock:, you should review the archived talk page discussions at PORNBIO, which reached the "overwhelming consensus" that award nomintions alone were not sufficient to demonstrate presumptive notability in this field. If you persist in arguments that simply ignore the applicable SNG, the closer will likely discount or disregard your !votes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it appears that a majority of what you do is nominate articles for deletion. They may not be perfect. They may not be the most relevant or "notable", but people put time and energy into these in order to provide some sort of historical record of information for those who may be seeking it. Perhaps no one 50 years from now is going to be looking for Casey Parker, or maybe they will. The problem I have is that there is no harm in an article that isn't "notable" by consensus of a small group of people. All this does is discourage people from contributing to Wikipedia. So unless there are blatant lies, misrepresentation or plagiarism, I see no need to keep deleting articles except for the sake of deleting them. Hobbamock (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any coverage in non porn sources reliable or not Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs must be sourced to GNG standard.Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no better signs of better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails guidelines for biographies of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 6 February 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.