Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Taverner

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Taverner

She's pretty hot, but sadly she's just another interchangeable product of the sex industry. Just as there is an average professor test, there needs to be an average pr0n queen test. On the evidence of the article, she's on the wrong side of the line. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think the picture on the page is appropriate for Wikipedia. (I hope I make this vote correctly!) Jakes18 03:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable enough. The photo on the site now is possibly a no-no and probably a copyvio. 23skidoo 05:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyright considerations aside, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Uncle G 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Page 3 girls from the Sun are not notable unless known for other things. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, page 3 girls from the Sun are seen by millions of people. Kappa 09:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • So are people who are mentioned in newspapers in actual news articles. Yet the consensus was to delete Maureen Faibish. Uncle G 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Not an entertainment figure. Kappa 14:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Whether Page Three girls are "pr0n queens" is a subject of longstanding debate. It's irrelevant here, though. These are women who are simply models that have their pictures shown in a newspaper, and no more meet the WP:BIO criteria on that ground than do the models that drape themselves over cars and furniture in newspaper advertisements to sell cars and furniture. Page Three girls can be encyclopaedia-worthy, but they have to do more than just appear on page 3 in order to be so. Some have. Samantha Fox had a career as a pop singer and as a presenter, Jo Guest has a career as a television presenter, as does Melinda Messenger, and ... you can read about Jordan (model) yourself. This model has, per this biography, done exactly none of these things. Delete. Uncle G 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I turned up that biography via a Google Web search, it being the first result in the search for "Anna Taverner" biography. I've since discovered that following any of the hyperlinks on the biography leads, either directly or via just 1 intermediate step, to pornography. Some research reveals that this site hosts a wide range of biographies on people from Anna Taverner to Lindsay Lohan, doubtless for the express purpose of capturing Google searches, all of which are just fronts. This calls the legitimacy of the information contained in that biography into question, of course. If the hyperlinks are lies, why not the rest of it, too? My vote remains unchanged. I cannot find any other biographies that contain even as much information as that one. Seemingly all that is known about this person, as reported by sources that are not untrustworthy pornography industry sources, is her name, place and year of birth, and occupation as a model for a newspaper. Uncle G 19:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• A Page 3 girl? Oh for gods sake, delete. --Calton | Talk 13:47, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite to explain why she is notable beyond having her photo in the paper. If that can't be done, Delete. Nandesuka 13:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, although I don't like blondes myself jamesgibbon 13:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not confirmable, if all she was was in one issue of one newspaper. Almafeta 13:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • She's a regular page 3 girl, not a one-off. Kappa 14:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Then somebody needs to confirm it. As of right now, to me it looks like an exceptionally weak excuse of a nude picture of dubious legality (how do photos from british papers come under US law?) on Wikipedia.
• Keep if she's a regular Sun girl, as that is notable in itself. I'd argue that Page 3 girls (who appear in mainstream newspapers with 7-digit circulation figures) are far more notable than "pr0n queens" known only to purchasers of adult DVDs. I admit this may be a UK-centric perspective. AdorableRuffian 15:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or establish notability beyond being a model in a single publication (even a 7-digit one). We have deleted local newscasters who are seen every day by hundreds of thousands of viewers and I believe they are more notable than a Page 3 girl. DS1953 16:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another model. No info. -R. fiend 17:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G and DS1953. Dcarrano 22:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but only if notability or importance is not established. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 22:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 13:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded. fap fap fap  Grue  19:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but nice double-X chromosomes. :) — RJH 23:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Some notability as per AdorableRuffian. JamesBurns 02:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply being a Page 3 model is not encyclopedically notable. Quale 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.