Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Cova (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Cova

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards or nominations. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. Biographical content is trivial. Survived prior AFD based only on now-deprecated multiple nomination criterion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - Without having done a large amount of research on the subject under consideration here, it seems like a redirect would be the best course of action at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known, many nominations to awards, Penthouse Pet, 21x interwiki, notable. Even if not meet nonsense of pornbio, common sense say - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - nominations or winning a scene award do not meet current guidelines, Pet of the month isn't good enough not even Pet of the year seems to be either, wikis are not a reliable source. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainbow unicorn: wikis are not a reliable source? Of course, but is not the point. If article exist on 22!!! Wikipedias and few users try delete it on en.Wikipedia because not meet the guideline of the new version of pornbio - this is nonsense. Somewhere we have to draw the line for this folly. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedias have their own notability guidelines. Some permit BLP articles without good sources, something we find unacceptable here. Some have an article just because it exists here. In en.Wikipedia, we rely on non-trivial coverage by reliable sources (GNG) to support verifiability, NPOV, and WP:NOR. As for PORNBIO, it is the most permissive guideline in Wikipedia. It says certain porn stars may be notable even they are shunned by reliable media and fail GNG. Consensus is that porn award nominations are given out too freely to indicate notability. It is unlikely that the nominations PORNBIO criterion will be brought back any time soon. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (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.