Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Via Paxton (3rd nomination)

Via Paxton

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. HollyHuntaway (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sourced, and shows no sign of being notable. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last AfD was a clear consensus keep and nothing has changed since then. Xihr 04:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
Delete Found her myspace page which claimed she was Voluptuous Magazine's Model of the Year for 2000 and 2001.[1] 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)[reply]