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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love twins (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)

Fails PORNBIO, all but one nom scene-related. No nontrivial relevant GNews or GBooks hits or reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO, which states "has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography", in this case, twin porn. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's enough coverage by XBIZ and AVN in the article to satisfy the GNG for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteFails WP:BIO and even the dubious WP:PORNBIO. They were not the first twins to make porn films. Do you think there were no twins appearing in porn before 2007 or whenever these two started? Such a claim that they "began a trend" is not adequately supported.The article is more of an advert than a bio. Is "Love" really their last name? I expect a bio article for an individual living in the present day to include actual referenced bio details. Edison (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 20:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pseudobiography about subjects which fail GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carrite reasoning indeed.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2013 (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.