Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Towers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiffany Towers

Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for her to be considered notable as per WP:BIO and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean does or does not? —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 12:25Z
Whoops. Thanks for the catch. Tabercil 22:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No citations of notability. αChimp laudare 05:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quite notable within her genre. 23skidoo 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Porn actresses have professional lifespans of a mayfly: they get enormous fame, huge numbers of appearances, and then disappear utterly in the course of 18 months. We have a duty, if we are encyclopedic, to be sluggish in recognition and conservative. We are not IMDB nor Variety nor AVN, so we have to wait a bit to see who sticks, as it were, and maintains a career. Women with breast upgrades are not automatic. Geogre 14:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice if she becomes notable in the future. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. However, if we could prove she is notable within a niche, then I would vote to keep. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The niche is 70FFF models. Or is that FFF models or is that 60 inch+ models?Vegaswikian 02:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. She is notable and even has an entry on the French Wikipedia, IMDb entry, and the most improtant 1,710 results on Google Images. [1] --Haham hanuka 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable (breast enhancement does not a notable figure make), but I won't oppose re-creation if she does end up meeting WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO at some point. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: She is more famous than half the porn actresses who have entries. Article needs improvement in terms of facts, however.
  • Keep. Star of an AVN Award-winning film counts for something. She is a model so why just judge her as an actor? The fact that the French Wiki includes her establishes international notability. Vegaswikian 02:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Haham hanuka . We have not that many Canadian porn stars, maybe would be better to delete less notable ones from the US. Hektor 04:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Her life span in the business goes from 1990 to at least 2005 and she still is very popular in the niche community of big breast fetish. The information in the wikipedia article is factoid as far as can be verified but could use additions. per CB
  • keep please notable in her genre and appeared in a award winning film Yuckfoo 23:29, 31 July 2006 (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.