Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Harper

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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liza Harper

Liza Harper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non notable, no real sources, fails WP:PORNBIO. Natalie 04:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, prolific, but no other assertions of notability, thus fails WP:PORNBIO. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATT and WP:PORNBIO. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Tabercil 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of passing WP:PORNBIO from the article. Epbr123 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for clearly passing WP:PORNBIO. Appearing in over 300 films is prolific in any genre. Even if you use the source with the lower total that is still over 165 films. Nominators really need to read the details before nominating articles. Vegaswikian 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would suggest that you need to read WP:PORNBIO more closely. It clearly says that number of films is an invalid measure of notability. There is no assertion that she is prolific in a genre niche, either. Natalie 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet a single notability requirement of WP:PORNBIO. Tarc 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Liza Harper began the anal gaping trend, which is now its own genre. timjr 03:04, 12 April 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.