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. Tone 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anais Alexander

[edit]

fails WP:PORNBIO, no reliable sources, no other indications of notability Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a Penthouse Pet of the month seems to establish notability, at least every other Penthouse Pet from that year has their own page. WP:PORNBIO specifically includes Playboy Playmates but doesn't similarly include Penthouse Pets, which strikes me as a bit odd since Penthouse is as well known as Playboy. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respond. The Penthose Pet criteria were removed from WP:PORNBIO earlier this year after extensive discussion. The discussion concluded that being named a Penthouse Pet didn't result in the level of independent, third-party coverage that being named a Playmate did. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That seems to conflict with the quote I frequently read in these discussions, that "notability does not expire." 69.253.207.9 (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree. In particular when PORNBIO is being discussed for the moment. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respond. There was a lengthy discussion, started by you, at [1], which showed a consensus that the version of the guidelines you support wasn't strict enough, and you ought to respect the consensus there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per WP:HOTTIE and better than a half million ghits out there. Women who show their tits get noticed and commented on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This extremely brief stub totally fails WP:Pornbio (as has been correctly noted above, being a Penthouse Pet doesn't confer Notability any longer, under the new-and-improved Pornbio criteria), nor is there any other indication of general Notability. She has never been nominated for a single award, and her very limited coverage extends to two different adult film databases (the first of which constitutes a dead link), and a list of former Penthouse pets ie., no mainstream coverage outside the porn industry. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing PORNBIO. Most penthouse pets are just not notable as they often don't have any independent coverage asides from Penthouse. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Does not present intersections of reliable independent secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. Lack of sources as well. Billbowery (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing useful on AVN,Xbiz or GNEWS. No evidence that this passes GNG, and no claim to any of the additional criteria that I can find. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2009 (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.