Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Aniston[edit]

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

Fails WP:Pornbio notability requirements. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to meet WP:GNG [1] for her industry coverage (no pun intended). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has not made an argument for deletion. Linking to a policy is not enough, you need to explain why it does not meet the policy. Since you have nominated so many articles with the same lack of rational I am not going to do your homework for you. Chillum 17:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No major award wins. No hall of fame. No non-industry general notability. Doesn't warrant more than a redirect to List of Penthouse Pets.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While nice, non-industry coverage is not a policy nor a guideline. It is reasonable that she would receive coverage in and for the industry for which she works. PORNBIO does not supersede the GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per MichaelQSchmidt and Chillum and the simple fact that as a Penthouse Pet of the Year, she meets GNG. Being a porn star is ancillary to this. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - trolling by nominator - user:Раціональне анархіст - mass reporting articles to AfD. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets consistent with prior outcomes. No serious argument that the subject passes PORNBIO. Even some Playmates of the Year are redirected to Playmate lists, and Pet of the Year, especially post-Guccione, is a substantially weaker indicator of significance. The dump of Google search results without examining the supposed "sources" is no more convincing or valid that a "just non-notable" delete vote would be: the most superficially important sources, from the Huffington Post, turn out almost entirely to be spurious, just links to unrelated articles which embed a gallery of a few dozen pornstars pictures at the end; the Vegas Sun links turn out to be a small number of press releases/PR puff pieces amid scores of unrelated pages including links to the PR pages, and the links to British newspapers (tabloids) turn out to be nothing more than links to gossip columns which mention Jennifer Aniston in one item and anyone named Nicole in another. (There are also a number of reviews/articles regarding a 2010 film where Jennifer Aniston played a character named Nicole, from which this performer clearly lifted her nom de porn.) All the kerfluffle about the nominator's substandard nomination statemens shouldn't obscure the subject's lack of notability and the essential fact that this is just another porn BLP without reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What prior outcomes? Please list them. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources suggests she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also tell that which requirement it fails to meet? VandVictory (talk) 17:55, 11 January 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.