- 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. kurykh 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simone Devon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod(2). The article is badly sourced, and there is no evidence that the subject passes WP:PORNBIO, or had any other claim to notability. Tatarian (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable, independent sorces for any of the information in the article, and no significant coverage anywhere. 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources, and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references. Promotional. Let me know if someone wants to substantiate and reference and make this article encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Not my field, but either she or Devonshire Productions appears to be notable as a producer, if not a model. DGG (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither seem to have any significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (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.