Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate's Playground

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's Playground

Website for a Cam whore with an allegedly deformed right foot. I contend that it's not encyclopedic, but debate will probably concern whether her appearance in a Playboy Newstand Special makes her notable or not. Brian G. Crawford 00:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I think all these porn things are UE, this is more notable then most of the others MadCow257 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Madcow, it seems like a popular site, I better sign up to ensure it is encyclopedic however! Mike _{(T C)} 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many other pornography related articles of much less merit that have been kept. Kate has been around for longer than most others serving as her own webmaster for the past few years, for the Playground and numerous other tgp type webpages. The fact that she recently appeared in a Playboy special just makes her more searched, and just allows for extra reason to keep the article. Albeit a person more familiar with her should come through and polish the article to a higher standard. Das Nerd 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant fact in the article is verified (the "model" doesn't even claim the Playboy appearance mentioned in the article, as far as I can tell), and even if she manages to squeak through the notability screen, her website doesn't. Monicasdude 01:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this site is popular people will want to know more about it here Yuckfoo 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a bit notable. I never noticed that her foot was deformed...oops Nobunaga24 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- She doesn't show her feet much in the pictures, and the deformed foot is a rumor based on several blurry pictures. If she does have a foot with two toes on it, she generally hides it very well -- very rarely do you see her feet at all, and if you do they're usually in shoes. Haikupoet 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I realize our nom was just being prudent rather than prudish when making this nom, but Ms. Kate has achieved a fair amount of visibility in her chosen profession as demonstrated by an alexa in the 3,700s [1] and crossover work in mainstream mags like Playboy. She is therefore a real up-and-comer who merits inclusion here. I would also indicate that the correct terminology is "internet model" as used in our article. Camwhore is far more derogatory, but perhaps more effective when trying to shock those of the prudish persuasion to slavishly hit the NN button on their keyboards. -- JJay 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm normally pretty against pornography sites getting articles, but I would personally have no quals with keeping this article at this time. Alexa says ranking of 3765 and 89 inbound links. According to the article, she's appeared in one Playboy special mag. Weak Keep, although I reserve the right to completely change this if this comes up at a later date. -- Saberwyn 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstaining at this point in time. -- Saberwyn 09:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ZornArmand 03:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand[reply]
Keep. If I say "Kate has a hoof" every single one of you is going to know exactly who I'm talking about and why I say it. And I don't think she's a camwhore per se -- "amateur model" might be more appropriate. Haikupoet 03:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very weak keep due to her Playboy appearance. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 03:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hyphen5 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough in her field. WarpstarRider 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable because of her Playboy appearence. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of no value except as advertising. CalJW 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, vanity. Playboy newstand special does not noteworty make and even if it does the website doesn't Dakota ~ ° 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The website isn't notable (even though I'm sure it does get a lot of traffic) and she isn't notable by being in Playboy or possibly having a 'hoof'. kotepho 18:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, sorta-appearance in a Playboy spinoff not quite notable. ProhibitOnions 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another porn site. Everythig there is to be known about this subject is already out there is vast and equally unverifiable detail. Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeez we keep far crappier articles than this. Jcuk 22:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bring them here, and we'll consider them on their merits, or lack thereof. -- Saberwyn 09:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mostly Rainy 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for the genre. Wording of the nom is a bit too POV, in my opinion. Has survived previous AFD as well. 23skidoo 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per MadCow. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Porn/Playboy models as well as porn websites are 13 to a dozen. Merely being one is not notable, and the article claims no more than that. Henning Makholm 03:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might be interesting. --Masssiveego 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Alexa ranking. Expand to include this bit of evidence of notability so article won't be vulnerable to "doesn't claim to be more than just another porn website" argument. Barno 20:48, 20 March 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.