Deletion of Brynn Tyler

Comment: Individual appears to pass .  Fine piece of Wikilawyering, though.  I mean that in a positive light
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: When I accessed  a moment ago, it said "has been nominated for such an award several times".  Are we looking at two different documents
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: meets the |requirements of the lastest version of PORNBIO, as set by consensus.  We're always welcome to revist this article after other portions of PORNBIO are removed through a consensus, and then judge notability per 's instructions toward well-known awards... and we will argue then whether or not a film award notable to its genre has any merit
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: No sources detail this individual in the depth required for an article. Nominations for porn-awards do not pass the extremely low bar of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Subject clearly passes both  and .  She has been nominated for several awards in her field.  The references are germane to that field and are independent of the subject.  The subject is clearly a pornographic actress, so there is no problem with saying that they've been in 1, 3, or 90 pornographic films.  With all the fuss that {{user|OrenBochman}} has been raising lately over articles about porn stars, I'm thinking that they have a  that they are trying to promote.  I suppose that next they'll want to raise similar concerns over Lady Gaga, Cher, and John Wayne due to their names
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PORNBIO||WP:POINT)