Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Ryan

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 keep. per Joe Decker's improvements. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Ryan

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG. No reliably sourced biographical content; relevant references are either blogs, promo pages, or both. All GNews/GBooks hits are spurious or trivial (cast lists/reports). The claimed "Feminist Porn Award" fails the well-known/significant test and does not contribute to notability; it is given out by a retailer to promote products it sells. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "well-known/significant test"? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The one in WP:ANYBIO. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant standards and guidelines; they've been mentioned in so many AFDS you've participated in that you really ought to know them by now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am familiar with WP:ANYBIO, thank you (which you didn't even mention at first), so for once you can actually stop with the attitude. And by the way, what isn't a promo page in your eyes? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable. All the sources are pretty spammy. RafikiSykes (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How? They're not from blogs, and they're not passing mentions or anything like that. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough and concise/well-written article. LogicalCreator (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a real bio - omits real name and other details. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no longer deemed notable. BO; talk 18:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not a real bio"? What do you mean? And what other details does the article omit? Also, the reason her real name isn't there is because I couldn't find a reliable source for that. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This incessant stream of purposefully obtuse questions to those who don't share your opinions is tendentious and has become disruptive. It appears intended to drive those who you disagree with away from discussions rather than promoting consensus resolutions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm being disruptive? Look who's talking. And I have a right to voice my opinion if I disagree. Not only do you need to stop stalking, but how about actually commenting on the discussion instead of me? (Makes me wonder if you're only against these articles because I'm the one that created them.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Closing admin - WP:PORNBIO is depreciated and should be disregarded. Hipocrite (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, not that again. I have already responded to that here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The FPA award and the AVN nomination were both documented in third-party coverage, per sources I've added. Some of the other bloggish sources do deserve trimming, however. Claims of WP:PORNBIO's death are, at this moment, demonstrably premature. Finally, two of the sources I've added edge towards WP:GNG (KOMO and one of the two Xtra Vancouver pieces), which in combination with the award and nom seems in total to reach the notability bar. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per joe decker. Epbr123 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per joe decker. Addressing perceived issues is always better than deleting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 26 April 2012 (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.