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 as non-notable biography. Subject lacks media/press coverage; a mention in IAFD isn't enough here.PeaceNT (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Hayes[edit]

Carmen Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:BIO criteria changed. Prolificness not a criteria. Contributions to ebony genre do not seem unique. Ran an AVN Awards nomination check and nothing came up. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Failed the standards the first time (number of films was 'questionable criteria', later moved to 'invalid criteria' under the old WP:PORNBIO), definitely fails the new stricter standards. No notability established through any of the WP:BIO standards for pornographic actors TheBilly (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of meeting any of the current criteria of WP:PORNBIO. --Stormie (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment above "Prolificness not a criteria" says it all. OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone, not notable, no non-trivial coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She didn't even pass the criteria at the time of the first AfD [1]. It's worrying how AfDs are dependant on the type of users who participate. Epbr123 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - user is the subject of multiple sources which are correctly cited in the article. Johntex\^talk 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.