Deletion of Ginger Jolie

Comment: Passes |PORNBIO, |BIO, and  well beyond what I'd consider normal for an AfD'd article. Covered as a model in a major pornographic publication, and there are plenty of quality sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Beyond "I want this aggregate record of secondary coverage gone because I don't like it", there's no reason for this to be here, and I don't think we should be bending over backwards for that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO||WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: Passes , the articles existence being inconvenient to her is irrelevant. And if she wanted privacy she shouldn't have appeared in porn films
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: Without some reason to believe that she was an unusual Penthouse Pet,  presumes she's notable.  This does not relieve us of the burden of meeting the general  guidelines, but the article is close enough as it stands to give it time.  AfD is for articles that are unsourceable, not unsourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: Agree. If tomorrow, a head of state asks her bio to be deleted from Wikipedia, we are not going to delete it. If a bio satisfies , that bio shouldn't be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Borderline notability and subject wishes it gone. I thought in cases of very little notability , this was the precedent. Mentioned in only 6  sources, all penthouse itself, no other sources.http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Ginger+Jolie%22&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8 Things have been deleted with far more  in any case. Do we have every model that's ever been in penthouse, regardless of whether they got any other discussion in the press or other things, on here? "Pet of the month" is not notable, not out of all the years penthouse has been going. Maybe if it was 'pet of the year' and she'd been in a lot of other publications too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: Per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: She doesn't meet the / notability standard. I usually don't bother with porn bio afd's (its not my area of expertise), but I am extremely sensitive to requests for anonymity. So even if the nominator's basis for the deletion request is unknown, I would err on the side of deltion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: She does pass /. Being a Penthouse Pet of the Month is generally considered in pornography AfDs to count as an "award from a major pornographic magazine
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: subject's" supposed wishes aside Ginger Jolie fails the | reliable sources, | verifiability, and | notability criteria. She hasn't won substantial awards in the industry or had any important/significant impact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: per Everyking. Meets  and given that she is in what amounts to essentially the same line of work currently there's no sane reason for any sort of courtesy deletion. The notion that courtesy deletion should apply to a notable individual because they are in a slightly different segment of the same industry is simply not reasonable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I was not aware that we were using Luke Ford blogs as sources for  articles.  Shouldn't these all be removed from all the Wikipedia articles straight away
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The fact that it's not properly sourced after this time, and quite frankly, probably can't be sourced properly to pass notability (and for those saying that being a Playmate Pet of the Month makes her automatically notable, I'd advise to look at , makes this a delete to me, with or without the subject's request. And we're not invoking BLP because of inconvenience, we're invoking BLP because she's a living person, and thus falls under the policy, Captain
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: She also gets 186,000 ghits, and 40,000 image hits. You have to be realistic here, her lack of privacy is not related to her Wikipedia article. She is clearly notable via either /. She even has an http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1422951/ IMDB Profile and Penthouse is still selling all her DVDs, as are dozens of other stores. Her status as Pet of the Month is easily sourcable. She isn't a crime victim here folks. Her BIO is listed on MANY other websites already, including http://www.gingerjolie.net/ginger-jolie-biography here, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1422951/bio here, http://tf.org/person/630 here, http://www.modfxmodels.com/FeaturedModels/fm-GingerJolie.html here (plus an inteview from her, and plenty of lesser bios like http://www.babes.net/detail.asp?name=Ginger+Jolie here, http://www.blissbox.com/store/peoplebio.asp?peopleid=7632 here, http://www.definebabe.com/models/072/ginger-jolie/ here, http://www.neongalleries.com/310/index.html here, and her images are available from literally hundreds and hundreds of pays sites. I don't think pity delete votes is conducive to Wikipedia's interests
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: Jolie was a Pet of the Month, so she satisfies . The bio is sourced. There is no need to delete this bio
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)