Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Monique deMoan

Potential misinformation
I'd regard these comments: to be unfortunate as they may create the mistaken impression of "critical mass" regarding the outcome of this vote. Perhaps if you changed the words "the presumption is, I think, in favor of notability for porn stars" and "The bar for porn stars is evidently fairly low." it would be more clear to the casual reader that no such presumption or bar for entry currently exists. brenneman (t) (c) 06:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have a lot of articles on pornstars.  It seems to me that the burden ought to be on those in favor of deletion to explain why she is not notable - the presumption is, I think, in favor of notability for porn stars. john k 05:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see Votes for deletion/Extreme Holly where 3/5 or 60% of the voters disagreed with that. - brenneman (t) (c)  05:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme Holly was kept; there was no consensus to delete. And that porn star didn't even have any imdb entry. She worked solely from her website. The bar for porn stars is evidently fairly low. --Tony Sidaway Talk  05:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)