Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svetla Lubova


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Svetla Lubova

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

Non-notable recipient of an in-house award. No coverage in reliable third party sources. Svetla Lubova generates less than 500 ghits and zero news archive hits. RMHED (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as notable for One thing only and there is no for anything but her being a one-time "pet of the month".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pass WP:PORNBIO, which states clearly the criteria for notability. Tabercil (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * She doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines, can you point out where WP:PORNBIO states that being a Penthouse Pet confers instant notability? RMHED (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award ... from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse..." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure being a centerfold is an "award" in the sense of being nominated and voted upon; that and a lot of us afficionados wouldn't consider Penthouse as a major porn magazine either. But I get your drift. --Quartermaster (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no she doesn't as she is not an actress and has never (inasmuch as I have been able to search) been in a porn film. I agree... WP:PORNBIO does not apply.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. If Penthouse Pet is all she's ever been noted for, easy delete, though it might be helpful to have a "fair use" photo of her Penthouse centerfold ... just for more information. --Quartermaster (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep oneevent is not applicable here, isf the event is actually notable. If we decide that being Pet of the Months is appropriately notable for an article, then this applies to all of them. Typically they will have some prior work of some sort, but a person can be shown notable by a single award or accomplishment. One term in congress, one olympic appearance, one bestselling book, and so one. (I do not mean to say these are equivalent in my personal view, but as illustrations)one DGG (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment So in your opinion being a Penthouse Pet takes precedence over the general notability guidelines? Interesting interpretation of notability you've go there DGG. RMHED (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that's the situation we seem to have gotten into via PORNBIO. Personally I find none of them notable, and I would personally like  somewhat more restrictive criteria for minor media figures, Porn or otherwise,  than we seem to be using, but that's only my personal views and not relevant here.  With respect to Wikipedia,  I do, however, hold with consistency and i do think it should be a rule to follow it if practical otherwise. . I suppose in terms of WP:N it would be asked whether this is intrinsically a notable award. I have no opinion on that, but if its a notable award, that applies to everyone who received it.  As the workgroup seems to think it is, the question ehre would be whether  this is a rational enough decision to get general support. DGG (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With respects to DGG... I've done my searches and enjoyed the photographs... but I can find absolutely nothing about her from before Penthouse or afterwards. Its almost as the person's identity was created just for this event. No films. No interviews. No previous or subsequent appearances. Nothing. Its like she never existed before Penthouse, and she has done nothing since. This really does (sadly) seem to be the poster child for WP:ONEEVENT.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that's really curious--is it in your experience unique? They gave her that placement though she had appeared nowhere else, and no one else thought to use her subsequently? DGG (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently AKA Ashley Adams. A Google image search suggests that of several Ashley Adams, she appears to be one. Porn performers seem to go by several names as a matter of course. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:PORNBIO applies here, as was reconfirmed recently in this discussion. Having already pointed this out to the nominator after he prodded the article, I'm not sure why this has been nominated for AFD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PORNBIO - as above, clearly notable. Honey And Thyme (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone can explain how she is clearly notable when she doesn't meet the general notability guidelines? Because I'm baffled. RMHED (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe an analogous situation would be Academy Awards for actors, cameramen, sound editors, etc. Not all of them will be household names or ever again achieve that level of recognition, but they become automatically "notable". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So Penthouse Pet of the month is equivalent to an Academy Award, interesting idea, though rather insulting to Academy Award winners. RMHED (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Things can be like other things without being the same as other things. There's no suggestion that they are equivalent. I'm not sure how this is in any way insulting to Oscar winners. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So winning an Academy Award is like getting naked for Penthouse magazine. Thanks for clearing that up. RMHED (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was naively trying to answer your question about notability, but I now see that you have a different agenda here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell me what my agenda is, as I seem to have misplaced my copy? RMHED (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your agenda, sir, is proper bollocks. I reckon you're arguing with DelCarb here without so much as considering he could be right.  Please purchase a new agenda (preferably leather-bound for increased durability), and refrain from using it to put forth bollocks arguments.  You wouldn't appreciate it if you were an agenda. Marcus Barrington (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Proper bollocks? as opposed to improper bollocks? Are bollocks at all relevant in regard to a Penthouse Pet? Most of the magazines readership probably do have bollocks but are the bollocks of immediate importance in this discussion? Beyond titillating the bollocks of the Penthouse readership what has this young woman done that's notable? RMHED (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. - fchd (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:PORNBIO. Dismas |(talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. For consistency, WP:PORNBIO should be followed. If you doesn't agree with the guideline, you should argue for it to be changed rather than hope people will ignore it during an AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in WP:PORNBIO that says a Penthouse Pet of the month is notable, how is that a major award? With regards to consistency in this context, I think Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best. RMHED (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "of the Month" part was taken out last year in an effort to trim down the length of the guideline. There was no discussion about this cut.  Dismas |(talk) 01:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Empty article w/o any biographical information, notability not established. There's no online information about this porn actress in Czech language, nothing at all, no mention anywhere. The name does not sound too Czech - it is possible the name and "Czech" origin were invented to add exotic feel. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no ceverage in reliable sources to establish notability. We look at significant awards for notability because they represent some form of peer or considered oversight in the selection of awardees for their work.  However, in the case of the Pet of the Month, it's essentially the centrefold shoot for that month's Penthouse magazine.  It's not even really an award.  It's a name that Penhouse has chosen to apply to their centrefold feature. -- Whpq (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. JBackus13 (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)  struck as sock of banned user
 * Delete due to the obvious lack of coverage in reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment we need to discuss the general issue of whether this amounts to notability. Removing it from the guideline seems to never have been discussed. The point of using it would be that such appearances give the model broadly-based notice, amounting in practice to notability.  DGG (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are countless pseudo-celebrities who appear on reality television shows each year, and despite their broad-based notice, do not ordinarily warrant individual Wikipedia articles due to their lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the arguments being put forth is that it meets WP:PORNBIO as an award. But it isn't really an award.  As for the appearance itself lending notability, we don't accept mere appearance in other situations as notable.  For example, a working fashion model gets a cover shot on Vogue doesn't automatically become notable.  And actor appearing in a movie doesn't automatically become notable.  We look for coverage about the person and the person't work to support the notability.  That coverage is completely absent. -- Whpq (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the precedent created by Articles_for_deletion/Ginger_Jolie. Pet of the month does not seem sufficient to establish notability (anymore). VG &#x260E; 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although interpretation of WP:PORNBIO seems to be in flux right now, Ginger Jolie met other aspects of the guideline, namely four AVN award nominations. It would be incorrect to assume the deletion of Ginger Jolie sets a precedent with regard to that guideline. The precedent would be toward the deletion of articles for people of borderline notability, when consensus to delete is nt reached in an AFD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes wp:pornbio as winning pet of the month. You can't use Ginger's article as a precendent, as it was a request by her PR person (and should have been kept anyway).   P HARMBOY   ( moo )  15:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While I agree that Ginger Jolie is not something we should be using as precedent (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or in this case does not exist) the argument that this subject has received no substantial coverage from reliable third party sources speaks volumes.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  16:04, 28 October 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.