Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Brenner

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 delete. Rough consensus is that the available sourcing isn't enough.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Brenner

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

Unsourced blp on a minor online porn star (i don't consider myspace and personal websites reliable sources) for which there do not exist sufficient reliable sources to construct a fair, verifiable and accurate biography. Appears to fail all the relevant BIO guidelines. Been repeatedly deprodded without reliable sources added, let along ones that would establish notability. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found one good source easily.[1] The sources already there are reliable per WP:SPS, but not independent. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people). No hits in IAFD, so notability via WP:PORNBIO is unlikely. IMDB filmography is particularly sparse. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are some google hits (the stars.ign.com one in particular and welll as the playboy site) but I don't see anything substantial enough to pass PORNBIO. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I unprodded a long time ago on the premise that she'd won some nontrivial awards (see this old version). But if we can't prove that she did, and the awards aren't notable enough, I could understand deletion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only non trivial awards I see are Playboy Cyber Girl (which are still pretty trivial) but it is by Playboy so has some significance in this first. But I would suggest a list of award winners by month and year in that article, and in most cases not a seperate biography.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an "award." That's an online photoshoot.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "Playboy ""Cyber Girl of the Week""" (2002) and month, they were listed under Web awards or nominations. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i understand that a previous wikipedia editor listed "playboy cybergirl of the week" as an award. But that wikipedia editor was wrong. IT meant she was hired for a nudy pic for the website (and not for the magazine). Assuming 52 weeks in the year, that's 52 "cybergirls of the week awards."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the cite I found said she was cybergirl of the month, so that's only 12 per year, yet I believe only (US) playboy playmates are automatic keeps. So that alone shouldn't be sufficient.--Milowent (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But she was not a playmate. So how on earth would not being a playmate be sufficient for keep?

I'm not saying it is, to be clear.--Milowent (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:N via the ign source and the massive number of poorer sources. Hobit (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... massive. har har. Did Bali ultimate search thoroughly?--Milowent (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is your weird obsession on the non-availability of reliable in depth sources on non-notable people being my fault? He said "massive" low quality sources. He doesn't know what a reliable source is, clearly. And you parrot him like a less bright beavis. I search and i find nudy pics at playboy, a face book page, a myspace page, a twitterfeed, the wikipedia page, various mirror sites of the nudy pics and the wikipedia page. There is a paragraph about her on a videogame website IGN.com. And that's about it.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A "less bright beavis", wow that's difficult to attain, but I'm glad you caught the intended low brow humour. I'm not saying anything is your fault, the debate should rightfully be on notability, and this is a marginal one.--Milowent (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bali ultimate, ignoring your insults, the ign.com article is a RS (and 5 paragraphs). [2] would appear to be more like a 1 paragraph review in what would appear to be a reliable source. [3] is a one paragraph article at ign that confirms her "awards". There appear to be a large number of these. Looks close, but I'd certainly say one good source plus many moderate ones is enough. Hobit (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Edg and Blofield's rationale regarding PORNBIO. Unit Anode 01:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Edg and Blofield's rationale. ~~No assertion of notability last time I saw the article.~~ Ok now added, possibly. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now sourced, not a strong keep, but just sufficiently notable.--Milowent (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Unit Anode 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and her coverage by IGN isn't quite enough to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 13:33, 4 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.