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 The result of the debate was delete - as non-notable and spam :) Croat Canuck 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

model "noted for her braces and youthful appearance" otherwise quite non notable IMO Melaen 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She's cute, but not notable. --StoatBringer 00:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. «LordViD» 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 03:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomTheRingess 07:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wikipedia has lots of webpages for porn actors and actresses. How do we decide which ones are notable and which are not? Note that I am not objecting to delete in this case - only wondering which criteria for notability are being used for porn stars. --Pierremenard
  • WP doesn't have any specific guidelines on porn people. Based on observation of previous AfDs, porn persons who appear in the IMDB and have credited apparances on videos/DVDs tend to be kept, while those whose pornography is mostly internet based do not. In my opinion this probably isn't quite strict enough, as it has led to quite a few articles with virtually no encyclopedic information, which are really mostly just a place to put a pornographic picture or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, but also as spam (which I think is the most relevant reason to delete most other three-line porn articles, too). JDoorjam 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam, NOT due to POV notability standard (see WP:NPOV for good reasons to ignore notability standards) Cynical 19:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly spam. Search4Lancer 23:40, 23 December 2005 (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.