Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexy Miss Lizz (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 delete. --Core desat 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Miss Lizz[edit]

Possibly fails WP:PORNBIO. However, the subject definitely fails WP:RS and WP:V. A previous discussion resulted in no consensus. --- RockMFR 21:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

289 ghits ignoring duplicates & Wikipedia pages, but are they all for the same woman? Anthony Appleyard 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Possible attack as well, but who can tell with something like that. Additionally this is borderline speedy under CSD:A7 as there is no assertation of notability. The last AfD should have been delete, because notable within fart pornography genre does not equate to notability. I am notable in a very limited scope, but I do not deserve a wikipedia article, yet. wtfunkymonkey 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and trivial. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A pioneer in fart pornography. If you think the article is bad, go ahead and improve it. --Easyas12c 16:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same argument that was presented in the last afd. However, there are no sources to back this up. --- RockMFR 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Notability claims are unsourced. It is the responsibility of article proponents to provide verification of notability. Fan-1967 19:45, 28 December 2006 (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.