Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Via Paxton

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Via Paxton

This was proposed for deletion, but I have brought it here. Not so much that I want it to be kept, but because I'm not sure that deletion would be uncontroversial, since we have many similar articles. 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. 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. I give the article a weak keep. -- Kjkolb 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the above (I feel it would be too weird to say "per nom"). Royboycrashfan 05:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Per nom. Metamagician3000 05:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn titty model. Proto||type 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All titty models are notable per WP:TIT. Uh, I mean delete as non-notable. Marskell 12:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probably one of the most recognizable "busty" models out there. I'd heard of her before this AfD and I'm not even a "Biguns" afficiondo... but then again I know alot of pointless trivia. I think she is too marginal in the realm of adult entertainment to be truly notable though.--Isotope23 14:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Marskell. Monicasdude 16:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless somebody can find the "journalistic coverage, independent biographies or extensive fan clubs" that Wikipedia:Google test requires for pr0nstars to be considered notable. I'm at work right now, so I definately don't want to go looking for that kind of stuff. ergot 16:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not WP material. If interested in the model use the internets. feydey 17:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable within the genre. Plenty of precedent. 23skidoo 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep reasonably notable (138,000 Google hits). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Check out the section of Wikipedia:Google test headed "Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography". ergot 15:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously has an audience. Kappa 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as notable as other models that have articles here. JayMan 20:09, 6 March 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.