Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley Reid (2nd nomination)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Available sources are mostly promotional, porn-industry publications. Judging by recent AfDs, mainstream lists such as "The Dirty Dozen: Porn's biggest stars" are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ENT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable performer of pornographic material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She easily passes WP:GNG. I ran a mainstream news archive search for her and found a whole bunch of material in a bunch of contexts from multiple countries - a surprising amount considering the dearth of material I've come to expect on some of these AfDs. I think this is the most clear-cut pass I've come across in these AfDs yet. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tons of mainstream media coverage on her. I found these [1], [2], [3], [4] in a few seconds. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the above, #1 and #2 are mostly Q&As with Reid, and #4 has little to no biographical info. The vast majority of news search results are tabloids, blogs, and industry websites, but a few ([5][6][7]) do seem usable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm a little surprised at the nomination and the single "Delete" vote thus far, to be honest. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG—lots of sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Clearly passes the WP:GNG. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough. Certainly more people have heard of Riley Reid than Terry Tao (random example), and he has a comparatively massive page. Tentonne (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Blatantly passes WP:GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable Adult Actress. Passes.WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.209.229 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This looks like WP:SNOWBALL to me. I would close it as keep but have already expressed my opinion. Anyone else can close this? gidonb (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Riley Reid is definitely a notable porn star due to mainstream media coverage. Example. ⌚️ (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2020 (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.