Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandora Peaks

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 09:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Pandora Peaks
If you want to know my reasons, they are the same as the ones I gave in the Chelsea Charms VfD. I mean, this is just lunacy. Plus one more very important additional reason is that she is even LESS notable than Chelsea Charms because she is not as big as her and is not the biggest in the world or whatever, which is a horrible title to have anyway. Who here finds her attractive? I just cant believe it. She looks like shes 30 and shes had a kid and shes just fat and people find this stuff sexy? Well, like I said, she is not notable, also look a her page, it says NOTHING about her, just advertisements and stuff about sex dolls and I dont know what else. I really wanna hear from women here because I think some men who have deviated from a godly path might be attracted to this kinda junk so we need some less-biased voices around here to show their opinions, I think theyll agree with me. Thanks and let the Wiki keep rocking! DavidsCrusader 11:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep; wiki is not censorship; keep in mind that there are people who might find your comment about a godly path offensive; and I would add that you obviously had a good look at the appropriate pages :) Lectonar 12:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Clueless newbie nomination. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Your definition of what is offensive may not be the same as others. --GraemeL 13:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Co-incidently, her name cropped up in a newspaper article I was reading a fortnight ago. I had never heard of her so googled. Needless to say, this entry on Wikepdia told me more than any of the 1000s of other web sites. Markb 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete See comments above. Providing free publicity for porn merchants is not one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, so it is legitimate to object to it. I am not religious by the way. Bhoeble 15:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Bhoeble, then we should delete the Ku Klux Klan article because I object to giving them free publicity. Pretending that things don't exist does not make them go away. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.  tregoweth  15:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Lack of attractiveness as a VfD nomination criteria? Keep per above. &mdash; RJH 15:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, same as Chelsea Charms. --Howcheng 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. "I think some men who have deviated from a godly path might be attracted"; David, this is not Christian Wikipedia. Sorry, but the topic is notable, regardless of how it personally makes you feel. If you don't like it, I would suggest that you stop going to articles about pornographic film actors. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Sliggy 17:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep User:Pirate2000. There are literally dozens of articles about models, actresses and porn stars on wikipedia. Why delete this and keep Brianna Banks, or Julia Roberts for that matter?
 * Speedy keep per Howcheng. --Several Times 19:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's no oil painting, for sure (and I must stop checking these pages at work!), but not looking like Natalie Portman or offending people is no reason for deletion. 69.12.131.148 22:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Not logged in, D'oh! Sabine's Sunbird 22:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. No offense, DavidsCrusader, but your POV means nothing to anyone but yourself. Please refer to the Guide to Votes for deletion. More importantly, the phrase where "The most important thing to remember about Votes for Deletion, especially for newcomers who are unfamiliar with it, is that it is about the article, not about you." -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. See also:
 * Votes for deletion/SaRenna Lee
 * Votes for deletion/Chelsea Charms
 * Votes for deletion/Casey James
 * --Tony Sidaway Talk 00:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - quite notable. --Noitall 00:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I like masturbating to Wikipedia. ...Erm, I mean it's an encyclopaedic entry. There's nothing about it that should warrant deletion. KeithD (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Pavel Vozenilek 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and crossing my fingers hoping the charming WikiDecency project gets deleted. CanadianCaesar 23:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd say speedy but I want this around for a while. Any VfD that uses deviation from a godly path as a supposed argument for decisions in an encyclopedia must be soundly rebuked and mocked as anti-intellectual hokum. DreamGuy 00:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - And another one deviated from a godly path. Wait, I'm gay - oh well, same difference, still keep, still deviated. BTW, how about deviating those "Decency" fellows from the WP? -- AlexR 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Ridiculous grounds for nomination. 23skidoo 03:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Definite keep. Everyking 03:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see nothing wrong with this. &mdash; J I P | Talk 05:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia has a huge number of entries for actors and actresses, both pornographic and otherwise. I don't see any particular reason why 'Pandora Peaks' is much different than all the others. Nortonew 13:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. *fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap* Project2501a 13:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1) I love you Project2501a 2) I hate to suggest bad faith but David keeps putting porn stars on VfD. Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors! This is annoying as hell and I'm close to filing an RfC, sorry. Redwolf24 00:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete we dont need whores like this Fuck Hole cluttering up Wikipedia! The time and effort should be spent on makin some CA$HOLA. -Wiffle0rz 06:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Superm401 | Talk 05:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course we should keep this page - next thing you know DC will want to cover up the Spirit_of_Justice. -Karmafan


 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.