Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Hollywood


 * 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ash Hollywood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod removed and question remains whether having a FANNY passes pornbio. Its a new award and doesnt have its own article so I'd say not significant enough to pass pornbio. Clearly fails gng otherwise - at least according to the nice mr google Spartaz Humbug! 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I wonder if ST's using an IP to get his own way ? ... Well either way it's gonna get deleted!, As damn stunning as she is unfortunately looks count for nothing, can't find any evidence of notability so will have say delete per PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - winner of the award, meets of WP:PORNBIO/Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, notable because: 10x interwiki and very many nominations to awards. Also, good quality article, not stub. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   11:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See this diff in a similar AfD for why the above user's argument to keep is wholly without merit. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Non-notable porn award, multiple noms fail WP:PORNBIO, so it wil lnot qualify on those grounds. Not able to evaluate the Men's Mag and "AIP Daily" at this time, will do so later. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Claimed award fails the well-known/significant standard, and appears already to be defunct. Little independent reliable sourcing, not enough to support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2015 (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.