| Revision as of 21:03, 11 September 2007 editEpbr123 (talk | contribs)291,700 edits →Tia Bella← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:40, 3 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (27 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''keep'''. ] 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|b}} | |||
| <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tia Bella}}</ul></div> | <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tia Bella}}</ul></div> | ||
| :{{la|Tia Bella}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Tia Bella}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Doesn't pass ]. ] 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | Doesn't pass ]. ] 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep.''' Passes ], which supersedes ]. She was worthy enough for ], a multi-millionaire (in the $300m a year range), to model a sex toy after her orifices. So she definitely has a niche there. Pardon the pun. ;-) -- ] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</sup> 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | * '''Keep.''' Passes ], which supersedes ]. She was worthy enough for ], a multi-millionaire (in the $300m a year range), to model a sex toy after her orifices. So she definitely has a niche there. Pardon the pun. ;-) -- ] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</sup> 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | ** |
||
| **Oh, right. Where does it mention modelling sex toys at ]? I would have thought there'd be porn stars more worthy of the honour; she's only made 28 movies. I think Johnson needs to re-evaluate his award criteria. ] 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***This clearly falls under someone creating something "independent of the subject", in a unique sort of way. Johnson is capable of doing whatever he pleases. As the saying goes, money talks... and other stuff walks. And besides, we're not here to opine about Johnson's criteria, we're here to report on it. -- ] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</sup> 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****If you are arguing this is some kind of award, the award needs to be notable. Plus, we don't know the reason Johnson chose her; it might have been because she was the cheapest pornstar he could find. If you're saying this is a form of independent coverage, Johnson wouldn't be independent of Tia, as Tia would be working for Johnson. I suppose she may be notable if only a few people had sex toys modelled on them, but there seems to be quite a few. Anyway, I'm glad you're willing to discuss this sensibly. ] 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****Well, she does also satisfy criteria #3 of ] by being in a niche, in that a product was modeled after her orifices. And, yes, having a product modeled after you for a sex toy ''is'' a niche, which has been satisfied by prolific performers such as ], ], ] and ]. Obviously, if this is contested, it may be worthy of further discussion. But as it stands right now, I can see this also falling under an exception to notability ''guidelines''. From WP:PORNBIO: "exceptions should be recognized in individual discussions". At the present time, I believe there to be an exception, since neither PORNBIO or N specify anything for or against toys being modeled after a person. Probably a more germane place to discuss this would be the talk page for the guidelines, or even the ]. -- ] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</sup> 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******I think this is a borderline case, so we'll have to agree to differ. ] 00:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' per ]. Further, she was on the cover of one very well-known magazine a the peak of her career and was featured in at least one other that can be confirmed. She hasn't become any less notable since her last nomination which was kept with significant consensus. This article was nominated for deletion by the ''same editor'' back in March. All of the notability concerns were addressed then and the article has received reasonable attention since then with regular cleanups and small additions. ] 01:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per ]. Further, she was on the cover of one very well-known magazine a the peak of her career and was featured in at least one other that can be confirmed. She hasn't become any less notable since her last nomination which was kept with significant consensus. This article was nominated for deletion by the ''same editor'' back in March. All of the notability concerns were addressed then and the article has received reasonable attention since then with regular cleanups and small additions. ] 01:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **Being on the cover of a porn mag isn't in the criteria for any notability guideline. ] 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' per ]; she most definitely passes ] because of the reasons stated above. Also, I don't believe consensus has changed significantly since Epbr123 last nominated this article for deletion, in March 2007. —] (]/]) 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per ]; she most definitely passes ] because of the reasons stated above. Also, I don't believe consensus has changed significantly since Epbr123 last nominated this article for deletion, in March 2007. —] (]/]) 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * | * | ||
| Line 12: | Line 26: | ||
| *'''keep''' - unlike most afd's has both references, and assertions of notability already in it. --] 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''keep''' - unlike most afd's has both references, and assertions of notability already in it. --] 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **One source doesn't mention her, one is imdb and one shows someone made a doll of her. ] 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. We've already gone through this; nothing has changed. Clearly fills a niche and thus is notable via ], is easily recognizable and although hasn't been in many films, many are notable. ], ], and P.S., artificial vagina. ] 23:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | **Which of her films are notable? ] 23:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy keep'''. Sorry to have to ] here, but what the fuck gives? This was unanimously kept about 6 months ago after being nominated for deletion by the exact same person. The subject still meets and exceeds ] as much as she did the first time 'round. ] 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Yeah, my faith's been bad again. Which ] criteria does she pass? ] 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''DELETE''' Having your vagina and anus immortalized in plastic as notability? I can almost agree with that, but there's nothing else in this article that's sourceable. The only actual reference for the article information is IMDB and contains a fraction of what's presented. I'd accept the artificial vagina as putting her over, if there was anything showing she was remotely near passing. I don't think 2 covers and 4 pictorials in third-tier, vanilla porn mags is that impressive. ] 08:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :'''Keep''' Per ]'s arguments and someone finding a source for the article information, which removes the BLP problem. Needs work, but that's not a valid reason for AfD. I have to agree that being selected by one of the largest sex toy manufacturers in the world for a signature toy is noteworthy. Move for ] ] 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Procedural keep.''' AfD is not a lottery you keep trying until you hit the jackpot. If there must be an AfD, at least adduce some novel reasons like a change in policy or new sources indicating her notability or some falseness on the part of the article. --] 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' and comments. Why do all but 2 sentences of the article's prose match the Tia's Vivid blog entry word for word? Vivid doesn't say they got them from Misplaced Pages. Also, having a penis, vagina, or even an entire doll based on a current porn star has been done for years. Is it really that distinctive? • ] 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** This is clearly an issue that should be brought on the attention of the ], and not at AfD, for further discussion. As for the issue of distinction, this is also an issue that should be discuss on the talk page, or even the appropriate project ''prior to'' AfD. -- ] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</sup> 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *** They clearly got it from us. Take a look lower on the Vivid blog, and you'll see a data for the blog post - December 2006. Our article dates back to 2005. You'll notice that looks even more like the Vivid blog post than either the current revision or . --] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **** Thanks for finding that out. ;-) Kudos! -- ] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</sup> 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***The "distinction" of a sex toy is the key assertion of notability and it saved the day in the first AfD. It is material to this AfD. The sex toy is porn-related merchandizing and so ] still applies and still needs to be satisfied. • ] 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' please. She's beautiful and her films are a cut above the norm. ] 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 07:40, 3 February 2022
- 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. John254 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Tia Bella
AfDs for this article:Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:N, which supersedes WP:PORNBIO. She was worthy enough for Doc Johnson, a multi-millionaire (in the $300m a year range), to model a sex toy after her orifices. So she definitely has a niche there. Pardon the pun. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, right. Where does it mention modelling sex toys at WP:N? I would have thought there'd be porn stars more worthy of the honour; she's only made 28 movies. I think Johnson needs to re-evaluate his award criteria. Epbr123 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- This clearly falls under someone creating something "independent of the subject", in a unique sort of way. Johnson is capable of doing whatever he pleases. As the saying goes, money talks... and other stuff walks. And besides, we're not here to opine about Johnson's criteria, we're here to report on it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you are arguing this is some kind of award, the award needs to be notable. Plus, we don't know the reason Johnson chose her; it might have been because she was the cheapest pornstar he could find. If you're saying this is a form of independent coverage, Johnson wouldn't be independent of Tia, as Tia would be working for Johnson. I suppose she may be notable if only a few people had sex toys modelled on them, but there seems to be quite a few. Anyway, I'm glad you're willing to discuss this sensibly. Epbr123 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, she does also satisfy criteria #3 of WP:PORNBIO by being in a niche, in that a product was modeled after her orifices. And, yes, having a product modeled after you for a sex toy is a niche, which has been satisfied by prolific performers such as Jenna Jameson, Sunrise Adams, Jenteal and Lexington Steele. Obviously, if this is contested, it may be worthy of further discussion. But as it stands right now, I can see this also falling under an exception to notability guidelines. From WP:PORNBIO: "exceptions should be recognized in individual discussions". At the present time, I believe there to be an exception, since neither PORNBIO or N specify anything for or against toys being modeled after a person. Probably a more germane place to discuss this would be the talk page for the guidelines, or even the porn project. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a borderline case, so we'll have to agree to differ. Epbr123 00:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, she does also satisfy criteria #3 of WP:PORNBIO by being in a niche, in that a product was modeled after her orifices. And, yes, having a product modeled after you for a sex toy is a niche, which has been satisfied by prolific performers such as Jenna Jameson, Sunrise Adams, Jenteal and Lexington Steele. Obviously, if this is contested, it may be worthy of further discussion. But as it stands right now, I can see this also falling under an exception to notability guidelines. From WP:PORNBIO: "exceptions should be recognized in individual discussions". At the present time, I believe there to be an exception, since neither PORNBIO or N specify anything for or against toys being modeled after a person. Probably a more germane place to discuss this would be the talk page for the guidelines, or even the porn project. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you are arguing this is some kind of award, the award needs to be notable. Plus, we don't know the reason Johnson chose her; it might have been because she was the cheapest pornstar he could find. If you're saying this is a form of independent coverage, Johnson wouldn't be independent of Tia, as Tia would be working for Johnson. I suppose she may be notable if only a few people had sex toys modelled on them, but there seems to be quite a few. Anyway, I'm glad you're willing to discuss this sensibly. Epbr123 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- This clearly falls under someone creating something "independent of the subject", in a unique sort of way. Johnson is capable of doing whatever he pleases. As the saying goes, money talks... and other stuff walks. And besides, we're not here to opine about Johnson's criteria, we're here to report on it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, right. Where does it mention modelling sex toys at WP:N? I would have thought there'd be porn stars more worthy of the honour; she's only made 28 movies. I think Johnson needs to re-evaluate his award criteria. Epbr123 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Joe Beaudoin Jr.. Further, she was on the cover of one very well-known magazine a the peak of her career and was featured in at least one other that can be confirmed. She hasn't become any less notable since her last nomination which was kept with significant consensus. This article was nominated for deletion by the same editor back in March. All of the notability concerns were addressed then and the article has received reasonable attention since then with regular cleanups and small additions. LaMenta3 01:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Being on the cover of a porn mag isn't in the criteria for any notability guideline. Epbr123 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Joe Beaudoin Jr.; she most definitely passes WP:N because of the reasons stated above. Also, I don't believe consensus has changed significantly since Epbr123 last nominated this article for deletion, in March 2007. —Disavian (/contribs) 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. LaMenta3 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep - unlike most afd's has both references, and assertions of notability already in it. --Rocksanddirt 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- One source doesn't mention her, one is imdb and one shows someone made a doll of her. Epbr123 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. We've already gone through this; nothing has changed. Clearly fills a niche and thus is notable via WP:PORNBIO, is easily recognizable and although hasn't been in many films, many are notable. WP:V, WP:IAR, and P.S., artificial vagina. Xihr 23:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which of her films are notable? Epbr123 23:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Sorry to have to assume bad faith here, but what the fuck gives? This was unanimously kept about 6 months ago after being nominated for deletion by the exact same person. The subject still meets and exceeds WP:PORNBIO as much as she did the first time 'round. Burntsauce 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, my faith's been bad again. Which WP:PORNBIO criteria does she pass? Epbr123 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
DELETE Having your vagina and anus immortalized in plastic as notability? I can almost agree with that, but there's nothing else in this article that's sourceable. The only actual reference for the article information is IMDB and contains a fraction of what's presented. I'd accept the artificial vagina as putting her over, if there was anything showing she was remotely near passing. I don't think 2 covers and 4 pictorials in third-tier, vanilla porn mags is that impressive. Horrorshowj 08:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Joe Beaudoin Jr.'s arguments and someone finding a source for the article information, which removes the BLP problem. Needs work, but that's not a valid reason for AfD. I have to agree that being selected by one of the largest sex toy manufacturers in the world for a signature toy is noteworthy. Move for WP:SNOW Horrorshowj 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Procedural keep. AfD is not a lottery you keep trying until you hit the jackpot. If there must be an AfD, at least adduce some novel reasons like a change in policy or new sources indicating her notability or some falseness on the part of the article. --136.223.3.130 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Question and comments. Why do all but 2 sentences of the article's prose match the Tia's Vivid blog entry word for word? Vivid doesn't say they got them from Misplaced Pages. Also, having a penis, vagina, or even an entire doll based on a current porn star has been done for years. Is it really that distinctive? • Gene93k 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is clearly an issue that should be brought on the attention of the article's talk page, and not at AfD, for further discussion. As for the issue of distinction, this is also an issue that should be discuss on the talk page, or even the appropriate project prior to AfD. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- They clearly got it from us. Take a look lower on the Vivid blog, and you'll see a data for the blog post - December 2006. Our article dates back to 2005. You'll notice that this revision of December 2006 looks even more like the Vivid blog post than either the current revision or the original revision. --AnonEMouse 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that out. ;-) Kudos! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The "distinction" of a sex toy is the key assertion of notability and it saved the day in the first AfD. It is material to this AfD. The sex toy is porn-related merchandizing and so WP:PORNBIO still applies and still needs to be satisfied. • Gene93k 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- They clearly got it from us. Take a look lower on the Vivid blog, and you'll see a data for the blog post - December 2006. Our article dates back to 2005. You'll notice that this revision of December 2006 looks even more like the Vivid blog post than either the current revision or the original revision. --AnonEMouse 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is clearly an issue that should be brought on the attention of the article's talk page, and not at AfD, for further discussion. As for the issue of distinction, this is also an issue that should be discuss on the talk page, or even the appropriate project prior to AfD. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep please. She's beautiful and her films are a cut above the norm. Brjatlick 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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.