Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The principal problem with the arguments for keeping is they are too focused on random searches in Google, which where then subsequently debunked (particularly by Steve Quinn) as being insufficient and / or unsuitable. As this article is on a living person, we must err on the side of being conservative. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Aniston[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nicole Aniston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; only nominations are present. No significant RS coverage can be found to meet GNG. Previous AfD closed as keep, but sourcing is still unconvincing. As an alternative to deletion, the article can be redirected (after delete) to List of Penthouse Pets. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Notability was confirmed at the first AfD, and notability is not temporary.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't believe that AfD discussions "confirm notability". Instead, their purpose is to determine consensus on whether an article should be retained or deleted. Such consensus can change. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability at the previous AfD?  Is that what you believe?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous AfD did not include a discussion of sources, for example:
  • Keep "Looks to meet WP:GNG [1] for her industry coverage (no pun intended)" (link to Google search)
  • Keep "Nom did not present a reason for deletion"
  • Keep "Trolling by the nominator"
  • Keep "per X & Y"
  • Keep "looks to pass GNG", etc.
Thus, the first AfD did not introduce any new sources or offer convincing arguments, just opinions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you believe that there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prior AfD had the appearance of being a vote, rather than a discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there was no discussion about notability because it was a vote?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prior AfD Ivotes noted by k.e. coffman had some seriously non-policy based arguments. I'm not seeing these as valid arguments for keep. I agree with k.e. coffman, the prior AfD has the appearance of merely being a vote, and of voicing unhelpful opinions.Steve Quinn (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another display of improper WP:CANVASSING. Violations aren't excused because porn is involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Another" display?  You've not cited any other cases.  Your assertion that this is improper is a proof by assertion, and since when is it improper to notify all of the previous participants in an AfD?  Please cite the evidence.  And the comment that this has something to do with "porn", what has that got to do with anything?  Finally, User:Mojo Hand is an administrator.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding ping @Раціональне анархіст:  for User:Раціональне_анархіст  Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A simple ping is quite neutral, does not state or imply how anyone else might or might not opine and as such, per behavior guidelines is not a canvas. However, unfounded WP:ADHOM accusations might violate policy WP:CIVIL. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with User:Hullabaloo. To me, this is canvassing. And I don't think Unscintilating actions in this matter are appropriate. H-m-m-m-m maybe I can come with other editors who should also have a chance to respond. H-m-m-m-m let me think....Steve Quinn (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:APPNOTE allows notification of "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Unscintillating did not notify the one Delete !voter in the first AfD, but that user had already !voted here. The guideline I quoted above does not contain the clause, "...unless they all agree with you". Work to change the guideline if you think it needs improvement, but in the meantime we should go with what it says and avoid asserting what it does not say. If there are known Delete supporters from other discussions, they can be notified too, along with all other participants in those discussions, but I don't think failure to go that far constitutes canvassing. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:APPNOTE also states, "particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior."  Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Winning an award is not the sole criteria for notability. 2,557 page views per day on Wikipedia is very impressive. She is a very popular Performer.

She’s very popular on social media. 273 thousand followers on Twitter. Over 100 thousand followers on Instagram. Over 100 thousand Likes on FaceBook. Glenn Francis (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a convincing argument and does not address WP:BLP requirements for high quality sources, to wit: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons...such material...must adhere...strictly to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)...be very firm about the use of high-quality sources " (the underline is mine).
Page views are not even considered in any content policies or notability guidelines (per WP:GNG). Asserting she is a popular performer generally or on social media without reliable sources is a POV statement. Twitter is not considered a reliable source per WP:RS (lacks independent reporting standards). Instagram is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards), and Facebook is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards). To satisfy the requirements for BLP, the subject must have acceptable reliable sourcing RS that bring it to GNG or BIO standards. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above two comments. 173.70.163.96 (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the arguments for keep are very unconvincing and do not address BLP requirements for high quality sources. The arguments for keep in the last Afd are also very unconvincing. One editor in the last AfD claims "While nice, non-industry coverage is not a policy nor a guideline." in fact it is very much connected to policy and guidelines because "non-industry coverage" translates into independent coverage which is a requirement for BLP in that it must satisfy GNG or even BIO. The same editor continues with. "It is reasonable that she would receive coverage in and for the industry for which she works". I agree that it is reasonable in the sense of the word, but not reasonable when using this coverage for indicating notability. This person then finishes with "PORNBIO does not supersede the GNG." I believe that is the only correct portion of this particular Ivote.
Another Ivoter in the former AfD said, "Sufficient sources suggests she meets the WP:GNG." Well this actually seems to be a misreading of GNG. It is the type of sources that determine the subject passing GNG. In this case, the sources do not suggest or indicate meeting GNG. Industry related promotional materials are not independent of the subject. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are what is needed. As an aside, she also fails PORNBIO because she has received only nominations. So, there is no way to establish notability for this person. Redirect after delete is acceptable to me. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She has won no significant awards. There is no significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. Neither x number of page views nor x number of social media followers confers notability, and such arguments are based neither in policies nor in guidelines. If those numbers are so impressive (which they aren't), then reliable independent sources would have been so impressed that they would have devoted significant coverage to her (which they haven't). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, since notability is never conferred and nothing in policies or guidelines says otherwise.  However, evidence of attention to the topic over a period of time contributes to establishing that a topic is "worthy of notice" as per the lede and nutshell of WP:N.  It is a fallacy to assert what independent reliable sources will do, since they may or may not take an interest in specific data.  I'm not saying that page views and followers do or do not contribute to notability, but the evidence can be considered on its merits. 

    Nor is there a requirement for the world at large to notice topics in prose.  An example is Barber Island.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you left out this part: "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." There is nothing there about gaining attention on social media, because social media coverage is not in agreement with neutrality - a content policy WP:NPOV. Also, Aniston's attention is not noteworthy enough to be covered by mainstream sources, as was stated above. And it appears that nobody is asserting what independent reliable sources will do - this is because Wikipedia and its editors do not engage in foretelling the future WP:CRYSTAL. We can only create articles that reliable sources cover - we do not decide, or even try to decide, what mainstream sources should cover - or we would also be in the POV business of righting great wrongs WP:GREATWRONGS. And the problem with page views, followers, and social media coverage is this is not independent journalistic coverage, upon which notability relies. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple Penthouse covers plus the Pet of the Year (not just the month, that would be nothing special), top 5 in an independent pornstar ranking, unique feature as one of only two exclusive contract performers of Naughty America, a big company, in over 10 years. Contract performers are seen as the big queens in the porn industry who have reached it all. (At the same time they are rather rarely getting awards because of their advantage to only shoot e. g. 10-20 films a year and their comfort not to do extreme stuff like others). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SamWinchester000's excellent explanation for keeping this article.Glenn Francis (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Penthouse covers,and Pet of the Year coverage by Penthouse do not qualify as independent coverage because these are Penthouse Magazine products. There would have to be independent coverage of these in reliable sources to indicate notability. Where are the independent sources stating she is in the top 5, and how much coverage is there? Please post them because I am not seeing this covered in the Wikipedia article. Where are the independent reliable sources that cover her, her contract, and the nature of that contract with Naughty America. (And what the heck is Naughty America?). Again, where are the sources that say "contract performers are seen as the big queens in the porn industry" and these have reached the top? Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass. Subject has received significant coverage. SSTflyer 04:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? The fact that Ms Aniston appeared in a magazine is not sufficient; they coverage needs to be about her. I'm not seeing such sources in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell none of these qualify as significant coverage per GNG and BIO. For example, this is what she looks like with and without makeup[1] and the article and the focus is on what the make-up artist can do - it is trivial coverage. This one [2] shows the pictures she has posted on Instagram - trivial coverage. This one [3] is merely an announcement and has trivial coverage anyway. This one is gossip [4] for the fans. And this is passing mention [5]. This is gossip and trivial coverage for the fans [6]. That appears to be all of them. At least now we are having a discussion. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ought to be seen as an object lesson as to why posts of raw search results establish nothing. A substantial share of the purported coverage of the subject are nothing more than compilations of gossip column items, with some individual items featuring Jennifer Aniston and others mentioning Nicole Kidman or Nicole Ritchie. Filtering such spurious hits and the many duplicate posts leaves essentially trivial coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was brought back because of notability issues and to assume otherwise is rather silly, I would suggest you read WP:AGF as well as the !votes here before making such absurd comments. –Davey2010Talk 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides the obvious aspersions just willy nilly cast here and there, it is remarkable bunch of assertions. How does this person meet WP:BIO? And linking genre coverage to GNG does not make sense, nor does linking awards to ANYBIO. By the way, the subject has not won any AVN or XBZ awards, she has only been nominated. The subject has so far failed to meet the criteria for ANYBIO, BIO, and GNG thereby not meeting the requirements for BLP. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to disagree with guideline explaining that award "wins" are not an absolute mandate when it clarifies... "or has been nominated for one several times"... and my math tells me multiple genre nominations are several... thus WP:BIO is met and well-sourced. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree with you. But, thanks for clearing that up. None of these awards have the backing of independent reliable sources that demonstrate these awards' significance. I appreciate you linking to the References section of this article - but, as far as I can tell, none of these demonstrate the significance of these awards in order to meet the criteria for ANYBIO. However, if you so desire, I would appreciate you providing feel free to provide links for the particular references that support your contention, if you so desire . Obviously corporation produced announcements are not independent sources; these contradict the core content policy WP:Neutrality, and WP:Verifiability, yet, even these only provide line-item passing mentions. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stating that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and related film-industry media cannot possible verify a notability assertion of winning an industry award? Even without coverage in The New York Times or Washington Post, it is determinable that most others accept XBIZ and AVN as suitable to confirm that a person has received nominations notable to their genre... even if this is not you.
While allowed, a personal opinion can often run contrary to our core principles and contrary to project-wide consensus and common sense. However, I do not expect you to agree with either myself or any other who might disagree with your narrowing view. So sorry, I find it unhelpful to blud someone who insists that notability can "only" be determined through mainstream media. Ain't the way this encyclopedia works and grows. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all my personal opinion is not related to GNG, BIO, ANYBIO, or BLP. These have been established by Wikipedia wide WP:CONSENSUS. I have already and previously delineated these [7]. And just so no one is taking my word for it here is the policy (statement) on how consensus works:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right; participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

This, of course, means that GNG, BLP, and so on apply to this article and every article in WikiProject Pornography. And appealing to a strawman in claiming a "narrowing view" is not an effective argument. However, the references in this article for the awards are certainly narrow in scope - because they are not independent, they are company promotional materials, they have single line item passing mentions. There are not too many ways to say this. I suppose I could reverse the wording or something like that. And bringing in the Academy Awards is, sorry to say, is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - these are not under discussion. In any case, many Academy Award winners have already received tons of press before receiving the award and will receive a ton more afterwards; especially afterwards. Also, the awards themselves receive a ton of coverage every year. Compared to these, the press coverage for the AVN and XBIZ award ceremonies is microscopic to nil. And award categories the subject is nominated for has nanometer sized coverage. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One only needs to go to the Wiki-link for Naughty America to find out about that adult film production company. Also, the article here already has a double citation (one to AVN - one of the most notable trade magazines in the adult film industry - and one to the online magazine itself) to the claim that the subject here was ranked highly in an online magazine's list of "Top 25 Hottest Porn Stars", whatever that really ends up meaning. Guy1890 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing short of keep, (yes not even "no consensus") would satisfy me here. In fact, if this closes as anythign other than a keep it would be indicative of an abandonment of wikipedia's mission statement which is to document notable henomenon about our world in an encyclopedic manner. How can someone that draws colossal celebrity-like followings on social media be viewed as anything but notable? If wikipedia has reached the stage where it no longer reflects the real world, it means there is something wrong with either (a) our editors, or (b) our notability guidelines. I really hope that we don't reach that point where we need to go beyond discussions on delete threads into a fundamental insight on the obstructiveness that has grown on sex-related (particularly porn-related) articles Pwolit iets (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with everything Pwolit iets just wrote.Glenn Francis (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What independent reliable sources with significant coverage do you have that show this subject meets the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:GNG? Please see the discussion above that indicates, so far, no such sources have been presented. Thanks in advance. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may not like it, but Subtropical-man is correct. The article is well and properly sourced and thus his opinion well-founded. Rather than demanding someone defend existing consensus, and with the understanding that they have survived there as sources multiple times, you are welcome to take AVN and XBIZ to WP:RSN rather than demand individuals defend them. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My short answer for now is - these references (and other available sources) have been shown to be unacceptable already for GNG and hence fall far short of high standards required by WP:BLP. Besides, the fact that these article references are materials produced by the company, and hence are not in anyway independent of the awards, there are only single line item passing mentions. So these fail GNG on two fronts or even three fronts, they are not independent, have only passing mention, and they are promotional materials. So you are welcome to find actual reliable sources the demonstrate the wp:significant coverage of these awards, because these references don't make the cut, even though you obviously don't like that. And you may not like this either, but Subtropical man has been shown to be incorrect at least once, and you have been shown to be repeatably incorrect, in just this AfD. - oh, and incorrect in the previous AfD as well. Well, I guess that isn't a short answer after all. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been demanding anything from anyone - so please tone down the rhetoric. Thank you. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when every source mentioned is struck down because it does not match up with what the guidelines require, and when keep !voters merely resort to pile-on, drive-by votes that provide no evidence, it becomes hard for me to see any legitimate reason why the article should be kept. Especially since one keep !voter, after finally running up against a stone wall and being unable to continue his lawyering, instead opted to tip the balance in this discussion by appealing to several editors that he knew would !vote keep. And no, the fact that it was kept at the last AFD does not mean that it must be kept forever. Consensus can, and does, change. Lepricavark (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as none of the Keep votes are fully convincing as they either are mentioning their comments alongside with something else, or not hitting the nail exact regarding independent notability; this is still questionable for the applicable notability and the listed awards are only nominations. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are only four article references (out of 19) that apply directly to the XBIZ and AVN award nominations per this discussion. These are:
  • New Starlet of the Year nomination [8] - scrolling down, only the subject's name is mentioned among 15 other nominees. This is not significant coverage and it is not independent coverage as aN XBIZ promo page.
  • Most Outrageous Sex Scene nomination - the link does not work. Anyway these tend to be the same in that the name of the many nominees are listed under one category. This is not significant coverage and it is not independent coverage as a AVN promo page.
  • Female Performer of the Year nomination [9] - it is unclear how this source relates to the subject. Using the "find" search function on the browser turns up her name - but the rest of the page surrounding the name is blank. The first pages have information, but further down there isn't any. Anyway - please notice the structure is the same as the first source. It lists only a number of nominees name in any category.
  • This source for the fourth nominee category in this article has the same structure - [10]. This is not significant coverage and it is not independent coverage as a XBIZ promo page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, why do you need multiple sources for the same thing ("only four references") and why are you actually only looking at the sources for her nominations? Indeed, nobody was using the nominations as an argument, and I thought those don't convince you, either. So why do you stick with nominations you generally won't even care? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, These are four sources, one source for each nomination in the article (references 15, 16,17, and 18). So, this is not for the same thing - it is for 4 different things. I am only looking at these sources because earlier an editor claimed the subject met the criteria for WP:ANYBIO #1 "This person... has been nominated for one [award] several times".
Well, now that I look at this - I can see there has been a misunderstanding. It was implied that because she had four different nominations, she passed criteria #1 for ANYBIO. I can see now this is not the case - rather it is being nominated for one significant award several times. So we were having a back and forth conversation about something that was not true. Oh well. That will not happen again.
You are correct, the nominations don't convince me at all - because the sources are not independent, they are company promotional materials, they have passing mentions only on a single line. My intent was to individually delineate the inadequacy of each of the 4 nominations. My comments following each external link are meant to show the inadequacy of each individual nomination. Hopefully this clears things up. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that there would be mulitple sources for one thing at the moment. It sounded as if you would want more sources for already sourced nominations. I never said that those nominations would have been the same, I stated nothing about the content of the article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC) P. S.: Writing an article, I would never source awards with other references than the official ones. Why should I? Other articles could just be wrong. Searching for an award of any genre (I don't mean only porn but e.g. a maths award) outside of its specialist literature/magazine/journal is just absurd for me.[reply]
So, I've added missing sources from the web archive and can now only say that those are indeed 4 different award nominations (but which were not my personal argument for keep). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (after edit conflict) I have been waiting for a relist for quite a while before I would bring up some fresh points beause it might take me a while to formulate them and it was rather too late to directly answer to above users and their Google News searches. However, as nothing seems to happen, here is what I found on Google News: This french website PurePeople calls her a "top star" for making classy parodies ("pastiches classés X") like "Tomb Raider, Les Schtroumpfs, Men in Black, Thor or Xena". They report from her photo shoot for a mineral water brand, call her "the wicked participant" (as there are also other normal models) and "the bomb of porn" and also point out that she's "holding the crown of Penthouse". That article is without doubt about Nicole Aniston. The argentine Infobae calls her an "influential (′impactante′) woman" who has "achieved to become one of the most popular starlets in the XXX film industry". Other Argentine ("infartante modelo" – "mind-blowing model"), French, Rumanian ("one of the most famous porn actresses") or Greek magazines e. g. have been reporting.
  • The next one is only a photo slideshow. However, recognizing her big Instagram presence Espectáculos Televisa says: "Nicole Aniston's sensuality always increases the temperature of Instagram.", "Nicole Aniston, one of the most famous XXX divas." This 2016 rumanian article about photos from her at home has called her "one of the most well-known actresses in adult films". GQ has listed the 10 hottest pornstars on Instagram in 2016 and commentates on Nicole Aniston as "Star of Penthouse and Naughty [America]". More sources referringt to the GQ list: [11], [12]. This is a list of 12 humans many people might know in general without actually realizing that those are porn stars. They quote her saying that in the last years she has learned how to successfully market herself - regardless of her actual profession.
  • An interview by a sports journalist when she hasn't already been Penthouse Pet. Yet, he states: "exploding onto the porn scene only a year-and-a-half ago". An article referring to her as the new Penthouse Pet. She's listed 2nd place in a Greek list from 2016 compiling the most famous porn stars from the 80's and the 2010's. An article about Marco Rubio's endorsement by Jenna Jameson makes a general pun about Nicole Aniston in connection with Obamacare due to her established name. An article about Veronica Vain coming from a Wall street job shortly mentions Aniston as a generally familiar pornstar who has been a benk teller. In the french reality show Les Anges de la téléréalité contestant Nelly Chanteloup wanted to achieve the same bust (size) as Nicole Aniston has, as for Nelly's fans she has been a veritable look-alike of the well-known porn actress.

I know that not each of those references might be ideal but I tried to bring up a wide range. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole_Aniston_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1089523731"