Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leya Falcon

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leya Falcon

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

A BLP that lacks reliable secondary coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO as no awards are listed, only nominations.

I suspect that the article may have been created due the tabloid news coverage of the subject's allegations re: a celebrity's son: link in November 2016. However, this makes this WP:BIO1E at best, cited to tabloid coverage. Does not help pass GNG IMO.

AfD seems like the best venue to address this. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Plenty of indepth coverage on Google, Meets GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

~~Which of these sources provide WP:SIGCOV? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
Can you save us time and point out the GNews hits in your link the aren't one sentence ask-a-pornstar quotes? They overwhelm the first two pages of hits. The only 3 other hits relate to the allegations noted by the nominator (1E). • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nevermind having quickly !voted I failed to properly check the sources, None of them pass GNG so get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the 1 Keep is a mere assertion of "Sourcing exists" which is not the same thing as actually specifying and explaining them hence nothing fully showing a convincing article (I examined and found nothing conclusive of notability), since the award is not in fact satisfying WP:PORNSTAR and then WP:GNG is not a policy, it's a suggestive guideline for "possibilities", hence not a convincing factor. Overall, nothing else has changed in the time I've watched this AfD and considering the career so far isn't significant, delete. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of passing PORNBIO. As I stated above, RS coverage consists of one line quotes and actor listings. The porn trade press is flooded with press releases. The only independent and significant coverage comes from tabloid stories of the alleged November 2016 incident. BLP1E that fails GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the argument of my original PROD and Gene93k's longer, quite accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:09, 13 January 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.