Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Prober

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Prober[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. None of the sources provided are about the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footballers Physical. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor 19:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article which mentions Doctor Prober from CFNMtv, https://lookalike2017.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/3d-lookalikes-and-celebgate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evagirl1991 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evagirl1991, may I suggest that you take another look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? Mduvekot (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim of notability is the extremeness of the porn. No reliable source coverage at all to support that claim or any substantial article content. No real claim for WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above !votes. No legitimate assertion of notability, no reliable sourcing suitable for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:35, 25 April 2017 (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.