Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Via Paxton (second 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 of the debate was keep. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Via Paxton

Fails to meet WP:PORN BIO guidelines and it doesn't appear as if they will be fulfilled, since she is clearly non-notable. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Notable and prolific within her genre niche. WP:PORN BIO is still under development and a consensus on what qualifies as yet to be worked out. 23skidoo 12:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, here is my reasoning with additions from the last nomination. She has appeared 14 times in Score magazine and Voluptuous magazine and once in Mamazon. She has also appeared on the websites of Score and Voluptuous. Score is one of the largest big bust magazines and Voluptuous is one of the largest natural big bust magazines (one or both may be the largest). She has had parts in at least two pornographic movies and has had one movie that is just about her, with her name in the title. Usually only performers with a fair amount of notability and significant name recognition with fans have such movies, at least when the movie is produced by a major studio. If she was not a porn actress and the films and magazines had the same audience in terms of numbers, I suspect that the article would be easily kept. -- Kjkolb 15:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems reasonable, but how do we know what the numbers for the audience of the films and magazines are? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Kjkolb arguable one of the biggest (no pun intended) stars in the big bust niche. I assume anyone into that sort of thing would probably deep her fairly recognizable and perhaps even iconic in that niche.... and I suspect it is a very big niche.--Isotope23 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. --Haham hanuka 20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An obvious standout per Kjkolb. Would benefit from a better photo. --JJay 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per all the convincing arguments above. I withdraw the nomination. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - could people who participated in this nomination join us in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(pornographic_actors)#The_.22Via_Paxton.22_rule and discuss which of these arguments should be added as additional criteria in WP:PORN BIO? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:01, 5 June 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.