Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tori Sinclair

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Sinclair[edit]

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

No evidence of passing GNG or any other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I note that the article asserts that Sinclair has "appeared in a number of mainstream movies of the erotic thriller genre". If her "career in fetish modelling" is seen to fall under WP:PORNBIO, then her mainstream films would appear to pass the PORNBIO criteria. As she has done over 184 films in toto,[1] the mainstream ones need be seperated out and considered toward overall notability, and yes... the article needs sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
After documenting the mainstream movies, keep per WP:PORNBIO -- 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karada (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't seriously be considering keeping a WP:BIO with no sources. Lionelt (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per {{BLP prod}}. —fetch ·comms 20:08, 28 May 2010 (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.