Deletion of Justine Joli (3rd nomination)

Comment: The arguments about "past notability" are misplaced. What matters ''today'' is whether or not a subject meets the notability criteria of ''today'', and these criteria do, of course, include past notability. In other words, if the subject ''per today's criteria'' has been notable in the past, it's worth an entry in Wikipedia, generally speaking.Per , {{tq|the fact that a topic  meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: does not meet  / . In re {{tq|"Things change over time" does not apply}}: the previous two closes occurred while PORNBIO was still in effect. With PORNBIO deprecated, there's nothing better
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:BASIC)

Comment: I'm not gonna lie, but I really don't see how she doesn't satisfy  or specifically . She's been covered repeatedly in print publications as the primary topic of the publication, and there are numerous sources to back that up. Her coverage in mainstream sources is also there. If she weren't a pornographer, I feel like this discussion wouldn't be going the way it has. So with that said:  applies here, and I'll say it again: notability is not temporary. Deprecating  is irrelevant
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NACTOR||WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: per two previous AfDs and the numerous covers of major publications she has been on, which easily meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ENT)

Comment: per the depreciated  guidelines and the fail of  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO||WP:NACTOR||WP:GNG)