Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Polina


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Anna Polina

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Closing admin - arguments about WP:PORNBIO are depreciated - that "guideline," has a consensus to be rejected. Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:PORNBIO is not deprecated. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep, not only the subject passes WP:BIO and the not deprecated PORNBIO, but even our General Notability Guideline, with some multiple language significant reliable secondary coverage about her (see GNews archives). Cavarrone (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:GHITS. None of those are anything other than trivial coverage. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Trivial? I see Le Nouvel Observateur, 20 minutes , Vanguardia, SportTune and many more in which she is the main subject of the articles.Cavarrone (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Nouvel Observateur piece is by Polina not about her, and hence doesn't count as an independent source. The longest articles are the Huff Post interview and Sportune interview, although interviews aren't always considered reliable sources.  The 20 mins article has one paragraph about her.  There's a couple of mentions in this Masculin article on a film she's in.  I'm unsure if this is enough, although maybe it is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article, as expanded since the AfD was initiated, indicates that Polina satisfies WP:PORNBIO, which is most certainly not deprecated. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:PORNBIO is not deprecated, and meets WP:GNG anyway with recent expansion. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I created the article, it's pretty obvious that I !vote keep (for all the above reasons), but I have to say a few other things. First of all, Hipocrite, it would have been nice had you actually notified me of this deletion discussion (didn't you read the last sentence in the AfD template?). Second, you seem to have a problem with pornographic bios in general, so I'm not even sure this was a good faith nomination. Finally, I don't know why you keep saying WP:PORNBIO is deprecated, when it clearly isn't. And even if it were, who's to say it should be ignored because of that? (Besides you, I mean.) In fact, you keep saying that , and it's becoming beyond disruptive.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Has two major awards. Epbr123 (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep 3 major awards. Yes industry awards, but so are oscars, grammys, tonys, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep stubby, but improved. Meets WP:ANYBIO for awards.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.