Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington

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 keep. This close is explicitly without prejudice to renomination if the RFC removes the relevant criterion from

Kelly Carrington

Kelly Carrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Delete, textbook

• Speedy Keep - if notability is the issue - clearly passes WP:PORNSTAR. Codf1977 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As I understand it, WP:BLP1E doesn't mean we shouldn't provide information on people only known for one event, but rather that it's usually more appropriate to place that information within an article about the event. However, in this case, it would be unfeasible to merge all 600 Playmate articles into one article, such as the
  WP:GNG, I think a seperate article is appropriate. Epbr123 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Satisfies GNG for me with multiple intellectually independent and reliable sources. I don't believe playboy playmates fit the low-profile mandate of BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - totally agree with Epbr123 & Morbidthoughts. NorwalkJames (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PORNSTAR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low profile before posing for Playboy, low profile after posing for Playboy. WP:BLP is policy, and I'm not sure how nude modeling alone makes one a "pornstar".
  Townlake (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - "WP:PORNSTAR" is simply a redirect. Yes, the notability section is titled "pornographic actors" and yes, there likely is a better heading for the section but Playboy is labelled as pornography and therefore Playmates sort of naturally fall under such a category. I continue to be confused as to why this is such a hang up for some editors. Dismas|^(talk) 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why you use the passive here; Playboy didn't label itself as "pornography." The PORN project labels every Playmate as under its purview, but tellingly, the project doesn't dare do this with celebrities who pose for Playboy, such as
      Townlake (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Feel free to change the PORNBIO heading to "Pornographic actors and erotic models" or something. Epbr123 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Wait - There is
  them being Playmates. And I'd like to remind the nominator that he voted to keep the last of these examples which has fewer sources than this article. Dismas|^(talk) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No need to remind me, after further consideration I feel that the WP:PORNBIO inclusion criteria for playmates of this sort are rather weak. JBsupreme (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 04:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least hold your horses until "consensus" has been rigged before starting the massacre-- and then pick the ones that haven't been the subject of multiple reliable sourcing. Very POINTy nomination. Dekkappai (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not meant to be "pointy", but I do invite people to join the relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable -- all viewpoints are welcome. JBsupreme (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Without the exemption for notability porn bio, she is clearly not notable at all.
  Off2riorob (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Except for passing
    WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2010 (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.