Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign Syre

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Syre

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read the talk page? The discussion could have been elaborated upon before nominating this for deletion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More aspersions Erpert? Do you actually have any sources to back up your assertions on the talkpage? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean, "more"? That's the first thing I said. And to answer second your question...yes, because no one has commented on the talk page (btw, you don't get to wikihound me either). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Erpert. I read the nonsense you posted on the talk page. You said, entirely without evidence, that "she is also notable outside of pornography due to her being a professional model", even though being a "professional model" does not satisfy notability standards, and that she was notable "outside pornography" because of "her involvement in alt porn", which is so mid-bogglingly obtuse (and remarkably silly) as to require no further refutation. As for being "the only active pornographic actress on Wikipedia to publicly identify as lesbian", you provide no sourcing for the claim; being the only person "on Wikipedia" to meet a criterion is not in any way an indication of notability; and the underlying "identification" is standard porn industry kayfabe, belied by the fact that Syre says different things to different interviewers for use in different market slots -- as here [1] (NSFW), where in a more recent interview Syre declines to make that identification, and discusses her most recent boyfriend. More generally, saying "I made these claims without any evidence so you have to refute them" counts for exactly nothing in deletion discussions, as do your incessant aspersions, insinuations, and innuendo. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails porn bio notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require must more stringent sourcing then available here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. RS coverage, even if you count the Playboy article (which I think is kayfabe), is not enough to pass GNG. A little better sourced than most porn stars but still not notable • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:26, 7 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.