Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tia Bella


 * 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. WjBscribe 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tia Bella

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. According to IMDb, she has appeared in 25 porn movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. She has appeared in a few porn magazines, but again that doesn't really make someone notable. Epbr123 08:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet more porn stars trying to use wikipedia as advertising space to further their careers by looking notable.they hav been busy 2day--Zedco 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please do not make accusations about other Wikipedia editors such as this unless you are able to furnish proof that the person who created this article is Tia Bella. 23skidoo 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete; what's with all the porn star articles flocking to WP? --Mhking 15:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The filmography in the article shows two releases named after her (WP:PORNBIO Q3), an the article also shows that she was on the cover of a magazine that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article itself. This suggests the appearance in many other notable magazines, as this tends to be a prerequisite to getting on the cover of any notable magazine in any genre. So she also passes WP:BIO. I didn't even have to do work on this particular article before I voted keep, and with my history in these discussions that should say something as well. LaMenta3 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Nominator has significantly changed his nominating statement since the beginning of this discussion. LaMenta3 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Only thing I can add to LaMenta's discussion is the fact that the Doc Johnson company has issued an artificial vagina named and modeled after her. Multiple magazine and film appearances, plus a commercially available reproduction of one's privates? Now that's notable. Dekkappai 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow...Dekkappai keep per me...isn't that kind of backward? ;) Actually, the most impressive part of this comment is that there's a commercially available reproduction of her privates. I'm rather amused by that... LaMenta3 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per artificial vagina. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per artificial vagina. RFerreira 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per artificial vagina. bbx 05:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because its too funny not to add on to the "per the artificial vagina" bandwagon... I mean they did make it exactly like her.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 05:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since she clearly fills a niche and thus is notable via WP:PORNBIO, is easily recognizable and although hasn't been in many films, many are notable. WP:V, WP:IAR, and P.S., artificial vagina. Xihr 06:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which niche? Epbr123 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons expressed above, artificial vaginae notwithstanding. ;-)  Burntsauce 20:14, 29 March 2007 (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.