Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanna Hilton

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 redirect to

sh! 03:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hanna Hilton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, only nominations and Employee-of-the-Month type "honors" from businesses promoting their own products/websites. No independent reliable sourcing. No real assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - After doing some more research on the subject under consideration here, there does not appear to be enough notability for a stand-alone article at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I suppose if that is better than simply deleting, either way, there's nothing to suggest a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as recommended above. She not notable enough for her own article. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Guess it's better than deleting .... although I would prefer deletion1 .–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:38, 25 December 2015 (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.