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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jynx Maze[edit]

Jynx Maze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Previously deleted uncontroversially, but later recreated based on now-deprecated nominations criterion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More award nominations since the first AfD but fails PORNBIO without wins. Still lacks substantial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gene93k LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - encyclopedic porn star. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yep, even I have to admit that this is not a keeper... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLPs require much better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another article probably more created as promotion than coverage of encyclopedic topics. Does not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, please leave out the accusations or insinuations. I'm a staunch supporter of Rebecca1990's efforts, she should be afforded every bit of WP:AGF as any other editor and regardless of the topic. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an encyclopedic porn star. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: - The subject perhaps doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO but it does satisfy WP:ANYBIO criteria #1, which says, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". I'm not intended to use WP:OSE as an argument here, but we do consider, WP:ANYBIO as a criteria of inclusion for biographical articles, many includes, actors, actress, singers from main-stream film industry. It should be deleted because, subject belongs to porn industry? I'm pretty sure, if it was not, people here, were using ANYBIO to save the article from deletion. We seriously need to give this double-standard mentality a consideration. While, PORNBIO notability guideline says, "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration", and does not give any weight to "award nominations", ANYBIO does. And, this way, these two BIO notability guideline, contradicts each other. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:20, 23 April 2014 (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.