Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Lamour


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Lexi Lamour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Claimed TV appearances are unsourced and uniformly involve erotic programming rather than mainstream content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement by IP without prior edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The current sources have minimal biographic content. Don't think anything better exists.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete BLPs must meet GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was tempted to consider a keep vote from the coverage I found in searches, but a closer look at these sources indicate they are regurgitated press releases. Fails PORNBIO without awards or being featured in real mainstream media. Fails GNG without substantial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Spartaz. Admirably concise and precise. David in DC (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. Clearly, fails all relevant notability guidelines. Finnegas (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I see the overwhelmingly stacked votes against this article, however reliable sources in WP:PORN is vastly different from restaurants and businesses. Per the ProjectPage's requirements AVN and AIN are WP:RS a search brought 77 hits on AVN] and 1 hit on AIN, and slight coverage from Brazzers. Valoem   talk  01:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even WP:PORNPROJECT cautions, "AVN also does not indicate when an article is a press release." The AVN and XBiz articles I found are reprinted press releases or trivial mentions. The media contact at the end is usually the tell on a press release. Brazzers is not a reliable source. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please can the closing admin not potential canvassing . Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment In regards to the canvassing, it was an outreach for the opinions from members of the porn project. I was confused specifically about this which states stated Xbiz is a RS with no further information. I tried to leave neutral messages for unbiased opinions, my concern at the time, was due to the lack of response from members of the wikiproject. I have no editorial history with any of the editors and found all of them here (went down the list). Valoem   talk  13:20, 28 March 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.