Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amai Liu

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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amai Liu

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

No indication of notability. Trivialist (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim of notability is millions of views on a porn site. No claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. No independent reliable sources cited or found in search to support WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any references to reliable sources, thus failing our core content policy of verifiability. No evidence is offered that she meets our General notability guideline, and none that she meet WP:PORNBIO, which I consider too lenient, but at least creates the basis for a real debate. Biographies of living people have stringent standards, which this article fails. This person exists, performs in adult videos, but is not now a notable person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately. Although I am fan of her, she fails to meet general notability criteria because of lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and WP:PORNBIO because she hasnt won notable awards. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete under WP:A7. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any assertion of importance or significance. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 - No importance or credible significance. –Davey2010^Talk 12:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: she is notable enough to be exluded from A7. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - She isn't notable enough at all. A7 IMHO still applies. –Davey2010^Talk 09:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable references whatsoever, fails notability guidelines. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 04:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. This run of the mill porn bio is noteworthy only for the lack of a glossy photograph, which most of the crap of this nature is built around. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 21 September 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.