Deletion of Matthew Rush (porn star)

Comment: freedom of speech as it is permitted in the rules of Wikipedia"''?  Sorry, there is no inherent "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia, or any other website for that matter.  Deleting this article would not violate "freedom of speech" if you are referring to your constitutional rights (presuming you are American), because the 1st Amendment only guarantee's that the government will not abridge your right to "free speech".  It says nothing about the media, or society at large, moderating you, I, or anyone else.  Just ask the Dixie Chicks... Besides, Jimbo's executive actions on some articles Brian Peppers should be proof enough that there is no absolute "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia; all articles are subject to removal by executive action if Jimbo et. al. deem it so.  But, enough of a civics lesson for today...  If you are speaking about systemic bias that may occur by deleting this entry, you may have a point.  In that case though it would be beneficial for anyone with the opinion of "Keep" to post some |verifiable sources proving that this individual meets  or  BIO.  I have not idea if he meets those criteria, hence no opinion on it.  Opinions for deletion or rentention should be based on those criteria though
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:BIO||WP:PORN)