Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Holiday

Tiffany Holiday

Porn actress who does not appear to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Speedily deleted seven times over the past few years, and it doesn't seem that notability has improved. A previous deletion review can be seen here. The article does not assert notability in my view, but the speedy tag was removed and given the history I think its time for an AfD discussion. Accurizer (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt the earth. An attempts to recreate this article should have to pass a deletion review, this is getting ridiculous. It is bordering on disruptive. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion.--Crossmr (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. I definitely wouldn't do her. Oh, and WP:PORNBIO. Ya, that too. Ironho lds 03:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:N amd WP:BIO. This in spite of such encyclopedic text as "She is known for a big natural breast." One breast? Is the other lesser in size or unnatural in its augmentation? Edison2 (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, it does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Lady Galaxy 06:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Pass WP:PORNBIO, WP:N and WP:BIO - see talk page, over 100 scenes, 894,000 hit on Google [1], 36,200 on Google Images [2]. Very famous American porn star [3] [4]. --THFFF (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Many film she starred are AVN Award Nominees, I've add it to the article. Now you can't say she doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Please reconsider your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.247.170 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been nominated 4 times for the AVN Award. The criteria states "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" - what does "serious nominee" mean though? Lugnuts (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She hasn't been nominated 4 times for an AVN Award, just the films were. Epbr123 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real porn star Qwerty1234 (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. As for the claims above, notability is not inherited from the films she was in, especially based on cast listings. Also X number of films and Y number of ghits are not reliable criteria for notability, especially in porn. They are too easily inflated. This article is basically an IAFD entry. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gene93k. Tabercil (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She has over 800,000 hits on Google - most of the porn stars who have an article on Wikipedia have less than 800,000 hits. What about the Google Image test? She has over 36,000 images - most of the porn stars who have an article on Wikipedia have less than 36,000 hits on Google Image. Exemple: [5]. You can check it. Tabercil, you know porn, you should know she is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by THFFF (talk • contribs) 08:15, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

G-hits is insufficient. If you look at WP:PORNBIO, you'll see right below it the Invalid criteria, which points out that Googlebombing can influence the result and the porn industry is known to use that. Tabercil (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100+ scenes. According to WP:PORNBIO most of the porn stars on Wikipedia should be deleted :( ... In fact I think that WP:PORNBIO should be deleted - Porn stars are people and they should be judged like any other person. --THFFF (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]