Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tia Bella (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Notability not established. Having your own "pussy mold" is not enough to establish notability. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tia Bella
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable one-year vivid girl. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Having your very own pussy mold is not notable if independent reliable secondary sources don't report on it. No awards or nominations known Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not appear to meet the requirementsat WP:PORNBIO. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PORNBIO and a sex toy modeled after her isn't all that remarkable in porn. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep due to clear consensus in two previous discussions as well as use of "non-notable" being an uncompelling reason for deltion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind you of the policy WP:Consensus can change. Epbr123 (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Roi. There were two clear consensus keeps and there isn't the slightest evidence that anything has changed either in terms of her notability or the consensus.  Not being satisfied with the outcomes of previous AfDs does not count.  Xihr  00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems clear from the opinions above that the consensus has changed. Her notabilty has still not been established by reliable secondary sources. Epbr123 (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but as the person who initiated both of the previous AFD's, at least one deletion review if memory serves, and has commented hostilely to almost every argument against deletion in all 3 AFD's, your judgment of an obvious change of consensus, when 1/2 the delete arguments are repeat customers, is severely lacking in credibility.Horrorshowj (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All that seems clear is that the people who wanted the article deleted still want it deleted for precisely the same reasons that they used during the first two AfDs. On the contrary, it indicates pretty clearly that nothing at all has changed.  Including your proclivity for trying to nitpick every single !vote you disagree with.  Xihr  02:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually the basis of her notability (on prior consensus), the pussy mold, has been challenged and removed per WP:V since it was linked to a vendor source, and I can pretty much guarantee you finding a reliable source for this is going to be difficult. We know the mold exists, but not important enough to be reported on. Presuming having such a mold is unique without confirming with a reliable source is personal analysis prohibited by WP:OR. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's a start for that reliable source search about the pussy mold. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Slow, painful, drawn out keep. To quote someone almost one year ago in a previous discussion "She was worthy enough for Doc Johnson, a multi-millionaire (in the $300m a year range), to model a sex toy after her orifices. So she definitely has a niche there."  This still holds true today.  JBsupreme (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete few porn stars are "notable" enough to have toys modelled after them (although I agree that the vendor site isn't the best "reliable source" for this as they obviously have a COI in the matter. There does need to be something from somewhere else so we know that "they" the vendor haven't just stuck her name on old "Jeanna Fine" merchandise. I have to say though that I'm not impressed with the removal of the content and AfD nom by the same person (however good the intentions actually were). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any harm in the same person removing content and making the AfD. It's like saying the same person can't remove content from an attack page and tag it for speedy deletion. 217.134.69.139 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This article and attack pages are too totally separate things but, other than stating you disagree with my opinion did you have something to contribute to this discussion about the article in question? Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Interesting that this has been nominated twice before, I didn't even notice the second one.  In any case I don't think that the consensus has changed, not in my mind anyhow; this person easily should meet WP:PORN BIO given the line of sex toys modeled after her and if not then it is the guideline failing us, not vice versa.  RFerreira (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nobody cares about her. We are making an encyclopedia, not a compendium of useless information. Prodego  talk  02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The delete arguments have a good point. The article does have sources, but the "artificial vagina" that keeps being claimed as notable isn't even in the article, let alone sourced in the article. I'd change to a keep of that can be handled, but without it I have no opinion one way or the other. Wizardman  01:07, 12 September 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.