Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 03:39, 5 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 03:39, 5 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced BLP of porn actor. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Comment, I have been sidelined from overhauling this article but was in the middle of adding the first of what looks to be about seven books mentioning him, some quite detailed, others reprinting his writings. Here's at least three scholar sources about him; and, of course, a couple of news hits. Given the vast majority of gay porn news sources never show in any of these searches - like these on Adult Video News - there seems no shortage of sourcing for this BLP and indeed the framework for a good article has already been started. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has enough coverage to meet the suggested guidelines for notability. Dream Focus 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Banjeboi I believe there is sufficient coverage for this one. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article may use the same sources as references throughout but there seems to be more than enough in those sources to warrant a keep. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- A very interesting article. Keraunos (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2009 (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.
- Keep - I really know nothing of porn, and feel that this article is particularly informative, much more so than some other porn related articles.RadManCF (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]