Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie K

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie K[edit]

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

fails WP:PORNBIO; no significant coverage, no major awards or repeated nominations for major awards. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The AVN nomination is just as one of three girls in one of fifteen trios up for "Best All-Girl Three-Way Sex Scene." I can find no other significant information pointing toward notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also called "Katie Kay," but can't find sources on her, pretty new performer. SPA article creator User talk:Kmicester (Katie K-meister?) is maybe a fan or publicist? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails our general notability guideline. I WILL SAY THIS THOUGH: we have a definite WP:BIAS towards seiyūs on Wikipedia, where we will keep biographies about them despite a complete lack of non-trivial coverage based solely on their catalog of voicework, yet we will delete pornography bios for what amounts to the same reason. DOUBLE STANDARD. We need to correct this. JBsupreme (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. General entertainers are given the same standard; they can claim notability if they have an impressive catalogue. The difference is that the work has to be notable. In effect, a respected catalogue would earn a pornstar inclusion here, by which I mean if the films were notable enough to be included, some of that coverage would pass on to the performer, who would then pass. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - I will say that notability should not be inherited from a parent or child article. Perhaps a better analogy in this case would be centerfold models. The magazine is notable but just because you appear in the centerfold it does not make you notable. JBsupreme (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not what I'm saying. If you are in a load of films which are notable (i.e., have got reviews, coverage in the mainstream media, etc) it is likely that some of those reviews and some of the space in those reviews cover you as a pornstar. If this is the case, and the coverage is "significant", the pornstar gets notability in a similar (although more indirect) way to WP:ENTERTAINERs. Ironholds (talk) 15:42, 8 January 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.