Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prinzzess

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 Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prinzzess

Contested prod (although I can't imagine why). This person is a million times less notable than Ginger Jolie and is completely lacking in the reliable sources department, let alone non-trivial sources. JBsupreme (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 05:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO and hasn't asked for her article to be deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to a lack of third party coverage by reliable sources. Whether or not she "asked" for deletion doesn't play into it. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete Ewwww. And yes, less notable than another one recently seen at AfD. It has only five hits in WP:RS [1] two of them penthouse, two of them I think are press releases, the other something anyone can get in if they dressed outrageously enough that day. Sticky Parkin 01:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:PORNBIO, even if the article needs work. Without implying that this is a deliberately disruptive nomination, the nominator seems to be attempting to pursue some kind of scorched earth policy with regard to Ginger Jolie and is extending it to other Penthouse Pets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that impression. The nominator seems to have been trying to wipe out any evidence that Penthouse ever had a Pet for September 2004. Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, I don't see how an in-house award of Penthouse Pet confers notability. RMHED (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Epbr123. Dismas|^(talk) 01:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Tabercil (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After some research, I've found that the "of the Month" criteria was removed from the WP:PORNBIO guideline here. I can't find any discussion that leads to this deletion that, in my opinion, creates a grey area as to what a "major award... from a major magazine..." consists of. Dismas|^(talk) 05:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. Also looks like a bad faith nom to me. Possibly nom did not read WP:ATD. Honey And Thyme (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you need to read WP:AAGF. This person is not notable and none of the keep !votes are even close to substantial, including your own. In-house awards do not confer notability, and this subject lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Full stop. JBsupreme (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok then, passes WP:PORNBIO. Therefore notable. Honey And Thyme (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK then explain how she passes WP:PORNBIO and then explain how she passes WP:NOTABILITY. RMHED (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2008 (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.