This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 February 24.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boroka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, and no significant independent coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People can always have different opinions on the porn actors and the porn industry. But the sources provides notability. Atleast in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She is of marginal notability, but there is enough to save the article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject fails PORNBIO and the GNG; the article includes no reliable or independent sourcing for any biographical information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet -- œ ^™ 16:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep:As per Regent of the Seatopians . Bill william compton (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there any evidence of notability? The article is sourced from a single promotional press release! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep:As per Regent of the Seatopians! --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: this !vote was !cast by indef blocked sockpuppeteer User:Magpie1892, who fairly regularly pops up on discussion boards as an IP to retaliate against me for initiating the SPI which led to his block. See here [1] for related ANI discussion and here [2] for the initial report of multiple account abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Neither of the above statements are ture (nor do we see any proof) and should be taken in context of various other claims made by this user with regard to his/her somewhat chequered past. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfotwitz has disingenously conflated me (former Magpie1892) with the fixed IP above. A summary checkuser would show no connection but that wouldn't make for such acompelling case for our friend HW. Further, I had issues with HW looooooooong before the SPI (which, again, was not initiated by HW) so it's not accurate to base my problems with HW's erratic and arrogant editing with the aforementioned. Again, it's a nice distraction, but has no basis in truth. People are constantly complaining about Woloftwitz and the reasons why are all too evident - he's a liar and a boor. --85.237.211.209 (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.