Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Bryce

Please note that this was recreated as a redirect immediately after deletion and this is now sitting at RFD. Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hunter Bryce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content beyond the minimal details from an obituary. PROD removed with the comment that the subject "Was notable outside of pornography"; but there is not a shred of evidence supporting this unexplained claim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you were paying attention, the entire edit summary reads: "Was notable outside of pornography; added ref (and cat)"; to which I indeed added a reference.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You're dead wrong. You didn't add any references; you added an additional citation to an existing reference. The content and category you added didn't deal with work "outside pornography"; it reported she was signed to/worked for Type 9 models, which is indisputably a porn talent agency. If somebody's not paying attention, it wouldn't be me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A "porn talent agency" is what other people are calling the company, not what the company called itself; and anyway, since she appeared in porn and was also a model, well, that does qualify for inclusion in Category:Adult models according to the header there (btw, that adultfyi.com link doesn't look very reliable). And that extra citation wasn't added before because no one else ever challenged the information in the article that was already there.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 18:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. The obituary articles are not enough to establish notability. The first ref comes from a routine death notice. The XBiz obit has depth, but it is insufficient by itself. My own search for sources yielded a brief obit in AVN. Still not substantial coverage. Finally, the claim of notability outside porn lacks evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per Gene93k. Delete until adequate referencing of notability outside adult film industry is cited. Flipandflopped (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Inadequate sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with Gene93k's detailed analyis. Finnegas (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the porn bio guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2014 (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.