Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Stryker


 * 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 as unreferenced biography of a living person whose notability has not been established. Skomorokh 12:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Stryker

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources of any kind, doesn't pass WP:Pornbio, and no other remote indications of general Notability. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject qualifies for WP:ENT, has appeared in close to 75 productions. Chuthya (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There nothing in WP:ENT that indicates her appearance in fewer than 75 of these very small, almost innately obscure, single-day film productions, satisfies any of its criteria. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:ENT 1. Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The size of the production is not quantified by WP:ENT 1. The productions in this article's context would be either "commercially produced" or "other productions." Take your pick. The fact that you don't think they are culturally relevant is insignificant. Chuthya (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Then by implication, your argument is that all porn stars are Notable.  And that argument fails miserably.  Why would WP:pornbio exist, if that were the case? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. No evidence whatsoever that this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet any WP:N criteria. -- Noroton (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Quantity doesn't equal notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.