Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Sonnet

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ewa Sonnet

I don't know. Just doesn't seem as notable as the article would like me to believe. James084 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 1,200,000 google hits. Must be notable in some context Bobby1011 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bobby and her seven incoming links from articles not created by the same person. NickelShoe 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Please note that porn producers and promoters spam search engines, thus skewing any results in the favor (and, by extension, rendering the Google test impotent). If you would note this search using the term "Ewa Sonnet" (with quotes), you shall see that Google only goes up to 500 (out of 770,000+!) search results, deeming the rest to be duplicates! And most of the "valid" results were nonsense without any true substance. you will see that a good chunk of the links are web cruft without substance. However, as I said, most porn producers create dummy websites to puff up the importance of their "product". For instance, sites may have meta tags with "Ewa Sonnet" in them, without having anything to do with that subject. While I thank Adrian for the correction, my vote shall stay the same. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC) -- Stricken by Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} at 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
• Delete as per Joe Beaudoin. Bobby1011 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The rest are not duplicates. Google also only goes up to 500 or so for Microsoft. It's just the way it works, and has no real bearing on the remainder of the results, for your purposes. Please, please, pretty please, stop citing this at AfD : ) . — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sigh Ok, then. Now that I believe that I am informed about what I am saying, keep it. Thanks Adrian. Bobby1011 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep , I suppose. Per Adrian. Cyde Weys 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No more notable than those hot teenage cheerleaders who are always emailing me. Monicasdude 06:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 08:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable within the genre. 23skidoo 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If the Google test is skewed for porn, then it's skewed for anything else that gets link-farmed. That's a pretty slippery slope that you want to shove us down. - CorbinSimpson 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per 23skidoo --Godtvisken 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per 23skidoo --GenericTSS 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. New material added which increases the richness of the subject considerably. briankaz 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep Noteable within the porn industry, especially within her specific genre. There are other well known porn stars on Wiki, this one is no different. She also has a music career which equally deserves a Wiki entry. The359 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I can't think of any real reasons to keep it, other than further broadening the knowledge base, I do know that "I don't know...just seems...like me to believe" are pretty limp wristed premises for any arguement. I'd hate to see any worthwhile contribution thrown to the wayside by such a weak argument. Dodint 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep She is far from a normal internet pornstar. She is at worst a nude model, and has not performed or pretended any sexual acts for stills or video. Her budding singing career somewhat parallels the progression seen by other models who have seeked to become more, and she has already been featured in major mainstream Polish media. Dismissing her now for no good reason is a bit absurd.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.246.87 (talk • contribs).

• Strongly Keep She is far from a normal anything. She is one of a kind. Don't be distracted by the boobs! We have yet to see even close to the full range of her talents. briankaz 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - she has a music video. It is hard for USians/UKians to judge some criteria at WP:MUSIC but per this page she has been interviewed on "best known and most popular Kuba Wojewodzki Show. It's gonna be seen by over 4 million people o next sunday at 10:25 pm of Polish time at the biggest Warsaw private TV station" which would seem to come close to "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio [TV?] network." KWH 03:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. Seems somewhat notable per WP:MUSIC. Page needs serious work, however. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:12, 28 February 2006 (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.