Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markéta Bělonohá


 * 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 (Non-admin closure) as per WP:SNOW- Ravichandar  03:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Markéta Bělonohá

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable under WP:BIO. No reliable sources to verify claims of notability, if you can call them that. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - she is playing in a mainstream movie. The article should be rewritten so that it does not look like a résumé. Hektor (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's only one appearance in "mainstream" media, and the movie hasn't been released yet. I can't find independent coverage by newspapers or other reliable sources to determine the notability of the movie and whether Marketa's role is minor or major. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- if you google her name, you'll see that she gets results by the bucketload redirecting the internet user to all sorts of picture galleries. Also if you look at her official website, you'll see she's been on the frontcovers of many magazines in the Czech Republic, Austria, Italy and even Germany. OBVIOUSLY AN IMPORTANT CELEBRITY IN CENTRAL EUROPE! I ACTUALLY DISCOVERED HER THROUGH A GREEK WEBSITE. SO, HER POPULARITY IS SPREADING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.88.150 (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)  —  81.158.88.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Notability is not determined from the raw results of a google search. Please read the guidelines for notability again. Furthermore, all claims of notability must be verifiable to a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- Re lack of sources other than primary. When Wikipedia uses primary sources directly linked to other adult actresses of East European origins (e.g. Renata Daninski) and nothing else AND YET THOSE ARTICLES REMAIN, how's that different from Marketa's article? YOU REALLY NEED TO REVIEW YOUR POLICY. OR AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.88.150 (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2008 — 81.158.88.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Each article must be considered by its individual merit. Renata is Penthouse Pet of the Month for November 2004 by Penthouse Magazine which satisfies WP:BIO for pornographic actresses. The source is the November 2004 issue of Penthouse Magazine. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is an open source project, not a US open source project. Being a US Magazine's Pet of the Month does not uplift an individual on its own. Wikipedia could otherwise be accused of cultural imperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.50.74 (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2008 — 203.82.50.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment, your arguments are nonsense. Penthouse has international notoriety and has international editions. If she was Penthouse Pet for the Czech version and it was properly sourced, it would be acceptable under WP:BIO. What is relevant is that the Marketa article is lacking in citations to reliable third party sources since April 2007 and no one can seem to find anything beyond her own website. That's not so notable. Vinh1313 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2008 (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.