Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravo Delta


 * 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. Lest there be any accusations similar to one made in the discussion, I note that my husband doesn't think I am homophobic. In any case, a lack of sources demonstrating notability are the key here, not the nature of the subject. RL0919 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Bravo Delta

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Current sourcing is not RS - a UGC source (Internet Adult Film Database) and a commercial (adult) site where you can hire the subject's services - unreliable and dependent. I can't find any better sourcing that would establish that the subject meets GNG - I confess that his highly generic name made searching for sources difficult, and will withdraw the nomination if better sourcing can be found. Girth Summit  (blether) 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bravo Delta is a famous porn actor. As evidence, I am sending you the following links: or  --Farid (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:IV is an interesting discussion about whether or not interviews contribute towards notability of their subject. Both of these examples, on websites of questionable reliability, use a simple series of canned questions and allow the subject to response to them - they are essentially primary sources. WP:GNG calls for reliable, secondary sources - these do not fit that bill. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a nothing of an article saying no more than the guy exists, and the second source pretty much makes the article spam. So delete per WP:N and WP:G11. SpinningSpark 21:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you are just homophobic and that’s why you want to delete the article --Farid (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Farid, that is an outrageous personal attack, in direct contravention of WP:NPA. If you knew me better you would know that it is ridiculous to suggest that I am a homophobe, but the fact that you do not know another editor is not an excuse for you to level personal attacks at them. My AfD nomination record is public, as is my contribution history - you are welcome to review my history to see whether you can find any evidence at all of homophobia - it shouldn't take you long to discover that my last good article was a biography of a gay woman. I nominated this article for deletion because that's what I do as an new page patrol reviewer when I come across an article without sources that establish notability according to our guidelines. I ask that you strike that accusation.  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the recently depreciated pornbio and lack of WP:RS. As spinning spark has suggested delete per WP:N and WP:G11 Wm335td (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.