1544:. Nothing short of keep, (yes not even "no consensus") would satisfy me here. In fact, if this closes as anythign other than a keep it would be indicative of an abandonment of wikipedia's mission statement which is to document notable henomenon about our world in an encyclopedic manner. How can someone that draws colossal celebrity-like followings on social media be viewed as anything but notable? If wikipedia has reached the stage where it no longer reflects the real world, it means there is something wrong with either (a) our editors, or (b) our notability guidelines. I really hope that we don't reach that point where we need to go beyond discussions on delete threads into a fundamental insight on the obstructiveness that has grown on sex-related (particularly porn-related) articles
902:." Well this actually seems to be a misreading of GNG. It is the type of sources that determine the subject passing GNG. In this case, the sources do not suggest or indicate meeting GNG. Industry related promotional materials are not independent of the subject. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are what is needed. As an aside, she also fails PORNBIO because she has received only nominations. So, there is no way to establish notability for this person.
1054:
5, and how much coverage is there? Please post them because I am not seeing this covered in the
Knowledge (XXG) article. Where are the independent reliable sources that cover her, her contract, and the nature of that contract with Naughty America. (And what the heck is Naughty America?). Again, where are the sources that say "contract performers are seen as the big queens in the porn industry" and these have reached the top?
1460:- these are not under discussion. In any case, many Academy Award winners have already received tons of press before receiving the award and will receive a ton more afterwards; especially afterwards. Also, the awards themselves receive a ton of coverage every year. Compared to these, the press coverage for the AVN and XBIZ award ceremonies is microscopic to nil. And award categories the subject is nominated for has
716:"...unless they all agree with you". Work to change the guideline if you think it needs improvement, but in the meantime we should go with what it says and avoid asserting what it does not say. If there are known Delete supporters from other discussions, they can be notified too, along with all other participants in those discussions, but I don't think failure to go that far constitutes canvassing. ―
1790:- it is unclear how this source relates to the subject. Using the "find" search function on the browser turns up her name - but the rest of the page surrounding the name is blank. The first pages have information, but further down there isn't any. Anyway - please notice the structure is the same as the first source. It lists only a number of nominees name in any category.
1665:. Besides, the fact that these article references are materials produced by the company, and hence are not in anyway independent of the awards, there are only single line item passing mentions. So these fail GNG on two fronts or even three fronts, they are not independent, have only passing mention, and they are promotional materials. So you are welcome to find actual
846:(lacks independent reporting standards). Instagram is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards), and Facebook is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards). To satisfy the requirements for BLP, the subject must have acceptable reliable sourcing RS that bring it to GNG or BIO standards.
1714:
keep !voter, after finally running up against a stone wall and being unable to continue his lawyering, instead opted to tip the balance in this discussion by appealing to several editors that he knew would !vote keep. And no, the fact that it was kept at the last AFD does not mean that it must be kept forever. Consensus can, and does, change.
1988:(after edit conflict) I have been waiting for a relist for quite a while before I would bring up some fresh points beause it might take me a while to formulate them and it was rather too late to directly answer to above users and their Google News searches. However, as nothing seems to happen, here is what I found on Google News: This
614:"Another" display? You've not cited any other cases. Your assertion that this is improper is a proof by assertion, and since when is it improper to notify all of the previous participants in an AfD? Please cite the evidence. And the comment that this has something to do with "porn", what has that got to do with anything? Finally,
52:. The principal problem with the arguments for keeping is they are too focused on random searches in Google, which where then subsequently debunked (particularly by Steve Quinn) as being insufficient and / or unsuitable. As this article is on a living person, we must err on the side of being conservative.
1673:
of these awards, because these references don't make the cut, even though you obviously don't like that. And you may not like this either, but
Subtropical man has been shown to be incorrect at least once, and you have been shown to be repeatably incorrect, in just this AfD. - oh, and incorrect in the
1455:
in claiming a "narrowing view" is not an effective argument. However, the references in this article for the awards are certainly narrow in scope - because they are not independent, they are company promotional materials, they have single line item passing mentions. There are not too many ways to say
1274:? And linking genre coverage to GNG does not make sense, nor does linking awards to ANYBIO. By the way, the subject has not won any AVN or XBZ awards, she has only been nominated. The subject has so far failed to meet the criteria for ANYBIO, BIO, and GNG thereby not meeting the requirements for BLP.
1185:
This ought to be seen as an object lesson as to why posts of raw search results establish nothing. A substantial share of the purported coverage of the subject are nothing more than compilations of gossip column items, with some individual items featuring
Jennifer Aniston and others mentioning Nicole
1053:
Penthouse covers,and Pet of the Year coverage by
Penthouse do not qualify as independent coverage because these are Penthouse Magazine products. There would have to be independent coverage of these in reliable sources to indicate notability. Where are the independent sources stating she is in the top
925:
She has won no significant awards. There is no significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. Neither x number of page views nor x number of social media followers confers notability, and such arguments are based neither in policies nor in guidelines. If those numbers are so impressive
1867:
Well, now that I look at this - I can see there has been a misunderstanding. It was implied that because she had four different nominations, she passed criteria #1 for ANYBIO. I can see now this is not the case - rather it is being nominated for one significant award several times. So we were having
1992:
calls her a "top star" for making classy parodies ("pastiches classés X") like "Tomb Raider, Les
Schtroumpfs, Men in Black, Thor or Xena". They report from her photo shoot for a mineral water brand, call her "the wicked participant" (as there are also other normal models) and "the bomb of porn" and
1713:
when every source mentioned is struck down because it does not match up with what the guidelines require, and when keep !voters merely resort to pile-on, drive-by votes that provide no evidence, it becomes hard for me to see any legitimate reason why the article should be kept. Especially since one
1328:
No, I disagree with you. But, thanks for clearing that up. None of these awards have the backing of independent reliable sources that demonstrate these awards' significance. I appreciate you linking to the
References section of this article - but, as far as I can tell, none of these demonstrate the
1818:
Wait, why do you need multiple sources for the same thing ("only four references") and why are you actually only looking at the sources for her nominations? Indeed, nobody was using the nominations as an argument, and I thought those don't convince you, either. So why do you stick with nominations
1020:
Multiple
Penthouse covers plus the Pet of the Year (not just the month, that would be nothing special), top 5 in an independent pornstar ranking, unique feature as one of only two exclusive contract performers of Naughty America, a big company, in over 10 years. Contract performers are seen as the
1889:
You are correct, the nominations don't convince me at all - because the sources are not independent, they are company promotional materials, they have passing mentions only on a single line. My intent was to individually delineate the inadequacy of each of the 4 nominations. My comments following
948:
Right, since notability is never conferred and nothing in policies or guidelines says otherwise. However, evidence of attention to the topic over a period of time contributes to establishing that a topic is "worthy of notice" as per the lede and nutshell of WP:N. It is a fallacy to assert what
1731:
instead as none of the Keep votes are fully convincing as they either are mentioning their comments alongside with something else, or not hitting the nail exact regarding independent notability; this is still questionable for the applicable notability and the listed awards are only nominations.
715:
allows notification of "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Unscintillating did not notify the one Delete !voter in the first AfD, but that user had already !voted here. The guideline I quoted above does not contain the clause,
215:
Subject fails PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; only nominations are present. No significant RS coverage can be found to meet GNG. Previous AfD closed as keep, but sourcing is still unconvincing. As an alternative to deletion, the article can be redirected (after delete) to
989:. Also, Aniston's attention is not noteworthy enough to be covered by mainstream sources, as was stated above. And it appears that nobody is asserting what independent reliable sources will do - this is because Knowledge (XXG) and its editors do not engage in foretelling the future
1838:, These are four sources, one source for each nomination in the article (references 15, 16,17, and 18). So, this is not for the same thing - it is for 4 different things. I am only looking at these sources because earlier an editor claimed the subject met the criteria for
1926:
source awards with other references than the official ones. Why should I? Other articles could just be wrong. Searching for an award of any genre (I don't mean only porn but e.g. a maths award) outside of its specialist literature/magazine/journal is just absurd for
893:". I agree that it is reasonable in the sense of the word, but not reasonable when using this coverage for indicating notability. This person then finishes with "PORNBIO does not supersede the GNG." I believe that is the only correct portion of this particular Ivote.
1908:
say that there would be mulitple sources for one thing at the moment. It sounded as if you would want more sources for already sourced nominations. I never said that those nominations would have been the same, I stated nothing about the content of the article.
1398:
can often run contrary to our core principles and contrary to project-wide consensus and common sense. However, I do not expect you to agree with either myself or any other who might disagree with your narrowing view. So sorry, I find it unhelpful to
1609:
What independent reliable sources with significant coverage do you have that show this subject meets the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:GNG? Please see the discussion above that indicates, so far, no such sources have been presented. Thanks in advance.
534:
The prior AfD Ivotes noted by k.e. coffman had some seriously non-policy based arguments. I'm not seeing these as valid arguments for keep. I agree with k.e. coffman, the prior AfD has the appearance of merely being a vote, and of voicing unhelpful
1130:
697:
I strongly agree with User:Hullabaloo. To me, this is canvassing. And I don't think
Unscintilating actions in this matter are appropriate. H-m-m-m-m maybe I can come with other editors who should also have a chance to respond. H-m-m-m-m let me
643:
637:
1021:
big queens in the porn industry who have reached it all. (At the same time they are rather rarely getting awards because of their advantage to only shoot e. g. 10-20 films a year and their comfort not to do extreme stuff like others). --
889:." in fact it is very much connected to policy and guidelines because "non-industry coverage" translates into independent coverage which is a requirement for BLP in that it must satisfy GNG or even BIO. The same editor continues with. "
949:
independent reliable sources will do, since they may or may not take an interest in specific data. I'm not saying that page views and followers do or do not contribute to notability, but the evidence can be considered on its merits.
1502:
1524:
in the adult film industry - and one to the online magazine itself) to the claim that the subject here was ranked highly in an online magazine's list of "Top 25 Hottest Porn Stars", whatever that really ends up meaning.
1437:
among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right; participants in a
1781:- the link does not work. Anyway these tend to be the same in that the name of the many nominees are listed under one category. This is not significant coverage and it is not independent coverage as a AVN promo page.
184:
2038:
many people might know in general without actually realizing that those are porn stars. They quote her saying that in the last years she has learned how to successfully market herself - regardless of her actual
884:
the arguments for keep are very unconvincing and do not address BLP requirements for high quality sources. The arguments for keep in the last Afd are also very unconvincing. One editor in the last AfD claims
336:
83:
993:. We can only create articles that reliable sources cover - we do not decide, or even try to decide, what mainstream sources should cover - or we would also be in the POV business of righting great wrongs
316:
1632:
and thus his opinion well-founded. Rather than demanding someone defend existing consensus, and with the understanding that they have survived there as sources multiple times, you are welcome to take
1161:
1965:
1498:
1223:
in a hope that past supporters will not return to support, and denigrating the expected genre coverage because it is not in "mainstream media" is weak. And while yes the previous topic
1661:
My short answer for now is - these references (and other available sources) have been shown to be unacceptable already for GNG and hence fall far short of high standards required by
400:-- I don't believe that AfD discussions "confirm notability". Instead, their purpose is to determine consensus on whether an article should be retained or deleted. Such consensus
137:
356:
1774:- scrolling down, only the subject's name is mentioned among 15 other nominees. This is not significant coverage and it is not independent coverage as aN XBIZ promo page.
178:
1494:
78:
237:
926:(which they aren't), then reliable independent sources would have been so impressed that they would have devoted significant coverage to her (which they haven't).
144:
842:). Asserting she is a popular performer generally or on social media without reliable sources is a POV statement. Twitter is not considered a reliable source per
1152:
1364:
780:
Winning an award is not the sole criteria for notability. 2,557 page views per day on
Knowledge (XXG) is very impressive. She is a very popular Performer.
997:. And the problem with page views, followers, and social media coverage is this is not independent journalistic coverage, upon which notability relies.
985:." There is nothing there about gaining attention on social media, because social media coverage is not in agreement with neutrality - a content policy
2002:
784:
She’s very popular on social media. 273 thousand followers on
Twitter. Over 100 thousand followers on Instagram. Over 100 thousand Likes on FaceBook.
1104:: Which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? The fact that Ms Aniston appeared in a magazine is not sufficient; they coverage needs to be
1151:
As far as I can tell none of these qualify as significant coverage per GNG and BIO. For example, this is what she looks like with and without makeup
983:
to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article
2046:
by a sports journalist when she hasn't already been Penthouse Pet. Yet, he states: "exploding onto the porn scene only a year-and-a-half ago". An
2020:
says: "Nicole Aniston's sensuality always increases the temperature of Instagram.", "Nicole Aniston, one of the most famous XXX divas." This 2016
2067:
1997:
calls her an "influential (′impactante′) woman" who has "achieved to become one of the most popular starlets in the XXX film industry". Other
1989:
1167:
2063:
2051:
2029:
1758:
there are only four article references (out of 19) that apply directly to the XBIZ and AVN award nominations per this discussion. These are
2017:
1158:
1155:
868:
1451:
This, of course, means that GNG, BLP, and so on apply to this article and every article in WikiProject Pornography. And appealing to a
1994:
110:
105:
2059:
1270:
Besides the obvious aspersions just willy nilly cast here and there, it is remarkable bunch of assertions. How does this person meet
1164:
17:
2035:
114:
1670:
2087:
1998:
1977:
1948:
1918:
1899:
1828:
1809:
1750:
1723:
1697:
1683:
1656:
1619:
1600:
1570:
1553:
1534:
1473:
1419:
1358:
1323:
1283:
1265:
1239:
1195:
1178:
1142:
1117:
1092:
1063:
1048:
1030:
1006:
964:
939:
915:
876:
855:
793:
748:
731:
707:
692:
654:
627:
609:
589:
544:
525:
507:
489:
475:
431:
413:
388:
368:
348:
328:
307:
290:
269:
249:
229:
62:
1424:
First of all my personal opinion is not related to GNG, BIO, ANYBIO, or BLP. These have been established by Knowledge (XXG) wide
60:
2071:
980:
665:
ping is quite neutral, does not state or imply how anyone else might or might not opine and as such, per behavior guidelines is
1191:
605:
303:
97:
1993:
also point out that she's "holding the crown of Penthouse". That article is without doubt about Nicole Aniston. The argentine
199:
1456:
this. I suppose I could reverse the wording or something like that. And bringing in the Academy Awards is, sorry to say, is
166:
2047:
1186:
Kidman or Nicole Ritchie. Filtering such spurious hits and the many duplicate posts leaves essentially trivial coverage.
2105:
2032:
2028:
in 2016 and commentates on Nicole Aniston as "Star of Penthouse and Naughty ". More sources referringt to the GQ list:
1457:
40:
2024:
about photos from her at home has called her "one of the most well-known actresses in adult films". GQ has listed the
2010:
2006:
1772:
2062:
makes a general pun about Nicole Aniston in connection with Obamacare due to her established name. An article about
1890:
each external link are meant to show the inadequacy of each individual nomination. Hopefully this clears things up.
1292:
You appear to disagree with guideline explaining that award "wins" are not an absolute mandate when it clarifies...
2083:
1944:
1914:
1824:
1514:
to find out about that adult film production company. Also, the article here already has a double citation (one to
1248:
It was brought back because of notability issues and to assume otherwise is rather silly, I would suggest you read
1187:
1026:
601:
299:
2025:
2066:
shortly mentions Aniston as a generally familiar pornstar who has been a benk teller. In the french reality show
1653:
1589:
1416:
1320:
1236:
960:
744:
689:
650:
623:
585:
521:
485:
427:
422:
So there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability at the previous AfD? Is that what you believe?
384:
265:
2021:
1391:
as suitable to confirm that a person has received nominations notable to their genre... even if this is not you.
160:
1745:
811:
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons...such material...must adhere...
2074:
as Nicole Aniston has, as for Nelly's fans she has been a veritable look-alike of the well-known porn actress.
1439:
1220:
994:
872:
217:
1434:
1425:
597:
156:
1380:
2101:
2079:
1973:
1940:
1910:
1895:
1835:
1820:
1805:
1719:
1693:
1679:
1615:
1549:
1469:
1354:
1279:
1174:
1113:
1059:
1022:
1002:
911:
851:
816:
703:
540:
503:
471:
409:
245:
225:
36:
1154:
and the article and the focus is on what the make-up artist can do - it is trivial coverage. This one
206:
1868:
a back and forth conversation about something that was not true. Oh well. That will not happen again.
1646:
1625:
1580:
1431:. And just so no one is taking my word for it here is the policy (statement) on how consensus works:
1409:
1313:
1229:
1138:
1134:
956:
740:
682:
646:
619:
581:
568:
556:
517:
481:
423:
380:
261:
58:
1342:
990:
736:
712:
666:
466:
Thus, the first AfD did not introduce any new sources or offer convincing arguments, just opinions.
1733:
932:
192:
101:
1839:
1443:
1346:
1329:
significance of these awards in order to meet the criteria for ANYBIO. However, if you so desire,
1293:
1216:
1931:
So, I've added missing sources from the web archive and can now only say that those are indeed 4
1372:
1087:
726:
2078:
I know that not each of those references might be ideal but I tried to bring up a wide range. --
677:
673:
447:
Keep "Looks to meet WP:GNG for her industry coverage (no pun intended)" (link to Google search)
1800:. This is not significant coverage and it is not independent coverage as a XBIZ promo page. ---
2054:
from 2016 compiling the most famous porn stars from the 80's and the 2010's. An article about
1566:
1530:
1044:
789:
364:
344:
324:
277:
as non notable porn actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2100:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1688:
I haven't been demanding anything from anyone - so please tone down the rhetoric. Thank you.
1400:
1395:
986:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1969:
1891:
1801:
1715:
1689:
1675:
1611:
1545:
1465:
1350:
1275:
1170:
1109:
1055:
998:
951:
Nor is there a requirement for the world at large to notice topics in prose. An example is
907:
891:
It is reasonable that she would receive coverage in and for the industry for which she works
847:
699:
572:
536:
499:
467:
405:
241:
221:
172:
1662:
1641:
1305:
1271:
1249:
1224:
1212:
1208:
1078:
839:
824:
802:
401:
1511:
1407:
be determined through mainstream media. Ain't the way this encyclopedia works and grows.
1376:
1188:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
602:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
564:
300:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
53:
1666:
977:
843:
838:
Page views are not even considered in any content policies or notability guidelines (per
2016:
The next one is only a photo slideshow. However, recognizing her big Instagram presence
739:
also states, "particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior."
1521:
1516:
1333:
feel free to provide links for the particular references that support your contention,
1297:
1253:
927:
615:
576:
278:
93:
68:
2043:
1368:
1082:
952:
820:
717:
1562:
1526:
1040:
785:
560:
480:
So you believe that there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability?
360:
340:
320:
131:
2055:
1497:, which is actually Nicole Aniston, was also unfortunately started as part of a
1371:
a notability assertion of winning an industry award? Even without coverage in
1160:
is merely an announcement and has trivial coverage anyway. This one is gossip
1039:
I agree with SamWinchester000's excellent explanation for keeping this article.
1493:- NOTE: I've recently edited the article under consideration here. FWIW, the
379:
Notability was confirmed at the first AfD, and notability is not temporary.
298:
per nom's accurate analysis. Lacks sufficient independent reliable sourcing.
1461:
1157:
shows the pictures she has posted on Instagram - trivial coverage. This one
498:
The prior AfD had the appearance of being a vote, rather than a discussion.
1169:. That appears to be all of them. At least now we are having a discussion.
1788:
1674:
previous AfD as well. Well, I guess that isn't a short answer after all.
1337:. Obviously corporation produced announcements are not independent sources
1503:
left Knowledge (XXG) a while back when their favorite article was deleted
1452:
2050:
referring to her as the new Penthouse Pet. She's listed 2nd place in a
516:
So there was no discussion about notability because it was a vote?
1798:
440:
Previous AfD did not include a discussion of sources, for example:
887:
While nice, non-industry coverage is not a policy nor a guideline
2094:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1637:
1629:
1384:
1309:
1252:
as well as the !votes here before making such absurd comments. –
1633:
1388:
337:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
1349:, yet, even these only provide line-item passing mentions.
827:(NOR)...be very firm about the use of high-quality sources
317:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
1966:
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
1844:
This person... has been nominated for one several times
815:, and to Knowledge (XXG)'s three core content policies:
1429:
801:
This is not a convincing argument and does not address
127:
123:
119:
600:. Violations aren't excused because porn is involved.
191:
84:
Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination)
1166:. This is gossip and trivial coverage for the fans
205:
1428:. I have already and previously delineated these
1108:her. I'm not seeing such sources in the article.
1081:pass. Subject has received significant coverage.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2108:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1367:and related film-industry media cannot possible
900:Sufficient sources suggests she meets the WP:GNG
553:These editors should have a chance to respond.
450:Keep "Nom did not present a reason for deletion"
1561:I agree with everything Pwolit iets just wrote.
357:list of California-related deletion discussions
2001:("infartante modelo" – "mind-blowing model"),
2009:("one of the most famous porn actresses") or
1644:rather than demand individuals defend them.
1294:"or has been nominated for one several times"
805:requirements for high quality sources, to wit
8:
1964:Note: This debate has been included in the
1446:does not apply to articles within its scope.
355:Note: This debate has been included in the
335:Note: This debate has been included in the
315:Note: This debate has been included in the
236:Note: This debate has been included in the
2064:Veronica Vain coming from a Wall street job
1442:cannot decide that some generally accepted
1365:Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
238:list of People-related deletion discussions
1963:
1510:One only needs to go to the Wiki-link for
1163:for the fans. And this is passing mention
354:
334:
314:
235:
1797:in this article has the same structure -
1341:these contradict the core content policy
1403:someone who insists that notability can
898:Another Ivoter in the former AfD said, "
76:
2070:contestant Nelly Chanteloup wanted to
1935:award nominations (but which were not
1501:, mass-AfD crusade by an editor that
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
2013:magazines e. g. have been reporting.
79:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston
1922:P. S.: Writing an article, I would
260:non-notable pornographic performer.
75:
24:
2026:10 hottest pornstars on Instagram
1819:you generally won't even care? --
1331:I would appreciate you providing
1129:as per above keep votes. Sources
676:accusations might violate policy
596:Yet another display of improper
453:Keep "Trolling by the nominator"
1939:personal argument for keep). --
1495:previous AfD about this subject
2088:06:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
1978:06:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
1949:04:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
1919:04:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
1900:04:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
1829:03:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
1810:21:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
1751:21:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
1724:14:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
459:Keep "looks to pass GNG", etc.
63:11:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
1784:Female Performer of the Year
1698:07:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
1684:04:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
1657:15:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
1620:02:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
1601:21:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1571:22:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1554:15:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1535:06:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1474:06:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
1420:15:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
1359:18:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1324:07:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1284:06:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1266:23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
1240:22:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
1196:14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
1179:00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
1143:20:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
1118:04:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
1093:04:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
1064:00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
1049:11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
1031:02:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
1007:00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
974:But you left out this part: "
965:01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
856:05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
749:13:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
732:07:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
708:05:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
693:23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
655:16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
628:17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
610:14:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
590:02:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
545:23:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
526:23:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
508:21:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
490:13:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
476:01:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
432:01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
414:05:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
2072:achieve the same bust (size)
2060:endorsement by Jenna Jameson
1647:
1590:
1581:
1410:
1314:
1230:
1227:... not I think this time.
683:
2068:Les Anges de la téléréalité
1793:This source for the fourth
1628:is correct. The article is
1583:
1578:- meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG.
940:06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
916:06:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
877:03:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
794:03:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
389:02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
369:16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
349:16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
329:16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
308:13:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
291:05:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
270:04:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
250:03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
230:03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
2125:
1777:Most Outrageous Sex Scene
1520:- one of the most notable
1298:multiple genre nominations
976:We consider evidence from
829:" (the underline is mine).
1990:french website PurePeople
1630:well and properly sourced
1624:You may not like it, but
1363:Are you stating that the
1296:... and my math tells me
644:User:Раціональне_анархіст
2097:Please do not modify it.
1768:New Starlet of the Year
867:per above two comments.
32:Please do not modify it.
1671:wp:significant coverage
813:strictly to this policy
1448:
618:is an administrator.
218:List of Penthouse Pets
74:AfDs for this article:
2018:Espectáculos Televisa
1432:
1379:, it is determinable
906:is acceptable to me.
904:Redirect after delete
817:Neutral point of view
672:. However, unfounded
1669:the demonstrate the
1225:consensus can change
825:No original research
638:Раціональне анархіст
456:Keep "per X & Y"
1444:policy or guideline
981:independent sources
1458:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1373:The New York Times
2036:list of 12 humans
1980:
1928:
1597:
1394:While allowed, a
1335:if you so desire
371:
351:
331:
262:John Pack Lambert
252:
2116:
2099:
2080:SamWinchester000
2022:rumanian article
1941:SamWinchester000
1921:
1911:SamWinchester000
1821:SamWinchester000
1795:nominee category
1748:
1743:
1667:reliable sources
1649:
1599:
1598:
1595:
1592:
1586:
1585:
1464:sized coverage.
1412:
1396:personal opinion
1381:that most others
1347:WP:Verifiability
1316:
1263:
1258:
1232:
1090:
1085:
1023:SamWinchester000
937:
935:Let's discuss it
729:
724:
685:
641:
580:
288:
283:
210:
209:
195:
147:
135:
117:
48:The result was
34:
2124:
2123:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2106:deletion review
2095:
1746:
1734:
1626:Subtropical-man
1588:
1579:
1522:trade magazines
1512:Naughty America
1377:Washington Post
1259:
1254:
1088:
1083:
957:Unscintillating
933:
741:Unscintillating
727:
718:
647:Unscintillating
635:
620:Unscintillating
582:Unscintillating
569:Subtropical-man
557:MichaelQSchmidt
554:
518:Unscintillating
482:Unscintillating
424:Unscintillating
381:Unscintillating
284:
279:
152:
143:
108:
92:
89:
72:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2122:
2120:
2111:
2110:
2076:
2075:
2040:
2014:
1982:
1981:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1929:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1813:
1812:
1791:
1782:
1775:
1763:
1762:
1753:
1726:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1686:
1604:
1603:
1594:
1573:
1556:
1538:
1537:
1507:
1506:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1449:
1392:
1287:
1286:
1268:
1243:
1242:
1213:genre coverage
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1182:
1181:
1146:
1145:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1096:
1095:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1034:
1033:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
995:WP:GREATWRONGS
969:
968:
943:
942:
919:
918:
895:
894:
879:
861:
860:
859:
858:
833:
832:
831:
830:
782:
781:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
734:
659:
658:
657:
616:User:Mojo Hand
593:
592:
548:
547:
529:
528:
511:
510:
493:
492:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
442:
441:
435:
434:
417:
416:
392:
391:
373:
372:
352:
332:
311:
310:
293:
272:
254:
253:
213:
212:
149:
94:Nicole Aniston
88:
87:
86:
81:
73:
71:
69:Nicole Aniston
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2121:
2109:
2107:
2103:
2098:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2030:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1991:
1987:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1962:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1925:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1907:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1845:
1841:
1840:WP:ANYBIO #1
1837:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1796:
1792:
1789:
1787:
1783:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1771:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1761:
1757:
1754:
1752:
1749:
1744:
1741:
1737:
1730:
1727:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1602:
1593:
1587:
1577:
1574:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1563:Glenn Francis
1560:
1557:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1489:
1488:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1441:
1436:
1430:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1418:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1406:
1402:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:WP:Neutrality
1340:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1311:
1310:well-sourced.
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1262:
1257:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1203:
1202:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1086:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:Glenn Francis
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
982:
979:
973:
972:
971:
970:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
953:Barber Island
947:
946:
945:
944:
941:
938:
936:
931:
930:
924:
921:
920:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
896:
892:
888:
883:
880:
878:
874:
870:
869:173.70.163.96
866:
863:
862:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
836:
835:
834:
828:
826:
822:
821:Verifiability
818:
814:
808:
804:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
791:
787:
786:Glenn Francis
779:
776:
775:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
733:
730:
725:
723:
722:
714:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
696:
695:
694:
691:
690:
687:
686:
679:
675:
671:
669:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
645:
639:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:WP:CANVASSING
595:
594:
591:
587:
583:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
552:
551:
550:
549:
546:
542:
538:
533:
532:
531:
530:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
505:
501:
497:
496:
495:
494:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
445:
444:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
395:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
353:
350:
346:
342:
338:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
313:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
282:
276:
273:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
208:
204:
201:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
158:
155:
154:Find sources:
150:
146:
142:
139:
133:
129:
125:
121:
116:
112:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
85:
82:
80:
77:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
59:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2096:
2093:
2077:
2034:. This is a
1985:
1936:
1932:
1923:
1905:
1843:
1794:
1785:
1778:
1769:
1759:
1755:
1739:
1735:
1728:
1710:
1652:
1645:
1575:
1558:
1541:
1515:
1490:
1433:
1426:WP:CONSENSUS
1415:
1408:
1404:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1319:
1312:
1308:is met and
1301:
1260:
1255:
1235:
1228:
1207:per meeting
1204:
1126:
1105:
1101:
1074:
1017:
975:
950:
934:
928:
922:
903:
899:
890:
886:
881:
864:
812:
810:
806:
783:
777:
720:
719:
688:
681:
667:
662:
634:Adding ping
397:
376:
295:
285:
280:
274:
257:
214:
202:
196:
188:
181:
175:
169:
163:
153:
140:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2056:Marco Rubio
2039:profession.
1970:K.e.coffman
1892:Steve Quinn
1802:Steve Quinn
1716:Lepricavark
1690:Steve Quinn
1676:Steve Quinn
1612:Steve Quinn
1582:Subtropical
1546:Pwolit iets
1466:Steve Quinn
1440:WikiProject
1351:Steve Quinn
1276:Steve Quinn
1221:back to AFD
1219:. Brought
1171:Steve Quinn
1110:K.e.coffman
1056:Steve Quinn
999:Steve Quinn
908:Steve Quinn
848:Steve Quinn
778:Strong Keep
700:Steve Quinn
573:VandVictory
537:Steve Quinn
500:K.e.coffman
468:K.e.coffman
406:K.e.coffman
242:K.e.coffman
222:K.e.coffman
179:free images
2052:Greek list
1786:nomination
1779:nomination
1770:nomination
1135:Tomwsulcer
991:WP:CRYSTAL
737:WP:APPNOTE
713:WP:APPNOTE
565:Scalhotrod
402:can change
55:Ritchie333
2102:talk page
2044:interview
1999:Argentine
1933:different
1648:Schmidt,
1462:nanometer
1435:Consensus
1411:Schmidt,
1315:Schmidt,
1304:... thus
1231:Schmidt,
698:think....
684:Schmidt,
577:Mojo Hand
535:opinions.
361:• Gene93k
341:• Gene93k
321:• Gene93k
37:talk page
2104:or in a
2007:Rumanian
1453:strawman
978:reliable
819:(NPOV),
721:Mandruss
678:WP:CIVIL
674:WP:ADHOM
670:a canvas
138:View log
39:or in a
2048:article
1995:Infobae
1986:Comment
1756:Comment
1559:Comment
1527:Guy1890
1491:Comment
1383:accept
1302:several
1102:Comment
987:WP:NPOV
575:, and
561:Chillum
398:Comment
185:WP refs
173:scholar
111:protect
106:history
2003:French
1906:didn't
1742:wister
1738:wister
1729:Delete
1711:Delete
1663:WP:BLP
1642:WP:RSN
1596:(en-2)
1499:pointy
1405:"only"
1369:verify
1345:, and
1306:WP:BIO
1272:WP:BIO
1250:WP:AGF
1217:awards
1209:WP:BIO
1079:WP:GNG
929:Cullen
923:Delete
882:Delete
840:WP:GNG
803:WP:BLP
663:simple
296:Delete
275:Delete
258:Delete
157:Google
115:delete
50:delete
2011:Greek
1924:never
1256:Davey
1106:about
1089:flyer
1077:as a
844:WP:RS
823:(V),
281:Davey
200:JSTOR
161:books
145:Stats
132:views
124:watch
120:links
16:<
2084:talk
1974:talk
1945:talk
1915:talk
1896:talk
1825:talk
1806:talk
1747:talk
1720:talk
1694:talk
1680:talk
1638:XBIZ
1636:and
1616:talk
1591:talk
1584:-man
1576:Keep
1567:talk
1550:talk
1542:Keep
1531:talk
1470:talk
1401:blud
1387:and
1385:XBIZ
1355:talk
1300:are
1280:talk
1261:2010
1215:and
1211:per
1205:Keep
1192:talk
1175:talk
1139:talk
1131:here
1127:Keep
1114:talk
1075:Keep
1060:talk
1045:talk
1027:talk
1018:Keep
1003:talk
961:talk
912:talk
873:talk
865:Keep
852:talk
790:talk
745:talk
704:talk
651:talk
642:for
624:talk
606:talk
586:talk
541:talk
522:talk
504:talk
486:talk
472:talk
428:talk
410:talk
385:talk
377:Keep
365:talk
345:talk
325:talk
304:talk
286:2010
266:talk
246:talk
226:talk
193:FENS
167:news
128:logs
102:talk
98:edit
2058:'s
2042:An
1927:me.
1836:Sam
1640:to
1634:AVN
1517:AVN
1389:AVN
1375:or
1133:.--
1084:SST
955:.
668:not
207:TWL
136:– (
2086:)
2031:,
2005:,
1976:)
1968:.
1947:)
1937:my
1917:)
1909:--
1904:I
1898:)
1846:".
1827:)
1808:)
1722:)
1696:)
1682:)
1618:)
1569:)
1552:)
1533:)
1472:)
1357:)
1282:)
1194:)
1177:)
1141:)
1116:)
1062:)
1047:)
1029:)
1005:)
963:)
914:)
875:)
854:)
792:)
747:)
706:)
680:.
661:A
653:)
626:)
608:)
588:)
571:,
567:,
563:,
559:,
543:)
524:)
506:)
488:)
474:)
430:)
412:)
404:.
387:)
367:)
359:.
347:)
339:.
327:)
319:.
306:)
268:)
248:)
240:.
228:)
220:.
187:)
130:|
126:|
122:|
118:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
2082:(
1972:(
1943:(
1913:(
1894:(
1842:"
1823:(
1804:(
1760::
1740:T
1736:S
1718:(
1692:(
1678:(
1614:(
1565:(
1548:(
1529:(
1505:.
1468:(
1353:(
1339:;
1278:(
1190:(
1173:(
1137:(
1112:(
1058:(
1043:(
1025:(
1001:(
959:(
910:(
885:"
871:(
850:(
809:"
807::
788:(
743:(
728:☎
702:(
649:(
640::
636:@
622:(
604:(
584:(
579::
555:@
539:(
520:(
502:(
484:(
470:(
426:(
408:(
383:(
363:(
343:(
323:(
302:(
264:(
244:(
224:(
211:)
203:·
197:·
189:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
159:(
151:(
148:)
141:·
134:)
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.