Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Via Paxton (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.  MBisanz  talk 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Via Paxton
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. HollyHuntaway (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sourced, and shows no sign of being notable. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Last AfD was a clear consensus keep and nothing has changed since then. Xihr  04:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Except consensus can change. I'm still wading through the google hits to try to verify her biography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it can, but there's zero evidence that it has here. Continuing to bring it to AfD despite clear consensus keep and no actual evidence of consensus changing whatsoever (that isn't even the argument the nominator makes here) is just trying to do an end run around consensus.  If consensus doesn't matter, then we might as well all just pack our bags and go home.  Xihr  01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Except prior "consensus" did not provide any evidence and ignored WP:V. Further, WP:PORNBIO was not established, giving a guideline to review the notability of the article. Consensus is changing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that doesn't make sense: Consensus is changing because you don't agree with it?  Consensus was a clear keep last AfD; either that was wrong, or it was right at the time but the consensus is changing (though there is no evidence for that).  But you're arguing both.  That is simply nonsensical.  Either consensus means something or it is pointless, and it's one of the founding principles of Wikipedia.  (P.S. Where are the nitpicking arguments of delete votes?)  Xihr  07:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Prior consensus is being challenged by this afd. The multiple delete votes are evidence that consensus may be changing, but this is not confirmed until the closing of the afd. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Found her myspace page which claimed she was Voluptuous Magazine's Model of the Year for 2000 and 2001. However, that's not an independent reliable source for a self-serving notability claim. Magazine is not notable, award is not notable so delete. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * THIRD TIME'S A CHARM! Delete. Burn it with fire.  This is a WP:BLP article which has no sources.  Since there are some people who are wiki-stalking every edit I make now, YES I searched on Google News archives.  I found ZIP, NADA, ZERO.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Also a grand total of 1 film review between AVN and XBIZ. No coverage of any kind found.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:43, 12 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.