| Revision as of 21:07, 11 September 2007 editEpbr123 (talk | contribs)291,700 edits →Tia Bella← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:15, 11 September 2007 edit undoEpbr123 (talk | contribs)291,700 edits →Tia BellaNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| 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 ]? ] 21:03, 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) | ||
| *'''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) | **Being on the cover of a porn mag isn't in the criteria for any notability guideline. ] 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:15, 11 September 2007
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)
- 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)