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 Procedural Close, given that it's been 8 years and change since this discussion was opened. The article was ultimately kept, and has been in place since that time with no problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The most common reason for Guinness removing her from the book is simple: they always change up the contents of the book for variety's sake. She still is the record-holder, and she still is in their database AFAIK. Jalabi99 12:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-norma Stitz belong on our sister site Wickedpedia.... Pointless (I hope). — Bill 18:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Note that is says she was in the Guinness Book of Records in 1999, but says nothing about subsequent years. I'm assuming Guinness removed her for a reason and I suggest that we do too, as this article is little more than porn advertising if it is indeed the case she hasn't sustained her world record. Delete. (By the way, how does one live with those things? Seems like they would get in the way of a lot of everyday activities all the time.) [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 18:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• this article should remain, seeing as the subject is a World record holder. that should be more than enough to prove the worth of the page

-maximusnukeage

• Note: The above poster was the initiator of the article. [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 19:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, note that bra sizes above "D" are none standard, in any case, a 22 inch breast as this article implies, seems physiologically impossible. -Vina 21:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We're not a dictionary of freaks. Some freaks may be notable, but not this one. --Improv 22:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 02:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Check out the number of google results. Still dunno if this establishes notability, since porn owns the web, but I'll err on the side of caution, since 10000 google hits isn't trivial. —siroχo 02:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I remember as a schoolboy being amused at purported book titles The Baby's Revenge by Nora Titov and Half a Man by Iva Nakeroff. Unless this can be better verified than by porn websites, a claim that she was in an obsolete and probably unobtainable edition of the Guinness Book of Records, and secondary sources based on these, then this is in much the same category. Andrewa 03:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep 11,800 results on Google. [1]. --Haham hanuka 14:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. —tregoweth 17:52, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai
• Delete: We are not the Guinness Book of Records. Having a physical attribute is not notable. It is being human. What has she done? What effect has she had? Geogre 01:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: But even this claim is highly suspect. It's a specific edition of the Guiness Book that is quoted. This raises two issues: Firstly if it's true that they listed her why don't they still list her (hint: they do make mistakes), and secondly is it even true that she was listed as claimed? Amazon has copies available of the 1999 edition but that's the sort of thing you'd need to do to find one, libraries and the like will have the latest edition or none. So it would be a good claim for the peddlers of this sort of junk to make. They're not stupid. No change of vote. Andrewa 17:41, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The 2003 edition (Dutch version) says Annie Hawkins-Turner from Washington, DC, USA has the biggest natural breasts with a breast measurement of 1.09 m under the breasts and 1.79 m on nipple height. And Annie Hawkins-Turner, that's the real name of Norma Stitz, so there you got the verification.Dinsdagskind 00:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambi 03:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - this is clearly verifiable, and she has had an influence... Trollderella 03:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a list with similar people. Article has virtually no information anyway. Radiant_>|< 12:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Bwithh 13:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dinsdagskind 00:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable topic and is one which many people will wish to reference (re Google hit count mention above, now at 54600). Isn't that exactly what an encyclopedia is for? MoonWalker 07:11, 03 February 2006 (GMT)
• Keep Quite shocking but encyclopedic...I do recommend getting rid of the (enormous tits) part though. Chooserr 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Donmega60645 01:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above, it's clear she's in the Guiness World Records. Whether or not this is noteable enough the fact that she's also a porn actress and we have numerous pages for porn actresses (as well as other minor celebrities) suggests there is nothing wrong with one about her, especially given her notability. Also, someone should close this discussion/voting. It's way too old Nil Einne 12:49, 8 June 2006 (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.