Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Ling

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Ling[edit]

Kiwi Ling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no evidence the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. All GNews hits apparently relate to other individuals with similar names; only GBooks hit is a passing mention in somebody's literacy-challenged, self-published/POD discussion of his favorite porn films. No reliable sources for any biographical content. Although the subject is credited with winning an AVN Award by the article, she is not mentioned in the AVN awards announcement [1], or listed as having a billed role in the release [2] [3]. She apparently was one of about two dozen extras who shambled around the set, topless in zombie makeup, watching other performers have sex. Even if one were to accept a broad reading of PORNBIO's award criteria, this still would set the notability bar far too low. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All Ghits are for videos on porn sites, only Gbooks hit is trivial, award she won is not prestigious nor important. --Madison-chan (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't? WP:PORNBIO says one AVN Award win is all that's needed. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the award was to her and her alone I could maybe see keeping the article, but an award shared with 8 other people doesn't seem very notable. Also, the fact that she has not made a major contribution to the world of porn makes me lean toward deletion. She seems like just another pornstar to me. --Madison-chan (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Messages striked out due to my own error. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do only participate in deletion discussions, but why is that a bad thing? If I only want to contribute to one part of Wikipedia, can't I be allowed to do so? And I am NOT A SOCKPUPPET, by the way. Don't bring it to them. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PORNBIO is not exactly a model of clarity. The ambiguity concerning whether an award won by two or more people ever qualifies as "Has won a well-known award" doesn't need to be resolved for the present purposes. It's sufficient to determine that a nine-person award sufficiently dilutes the commendation that it doesn't pass muster. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per existing and not-yet-deprecated PORNBIO, which does not disinclude consideration of group recognition... just as do not other SNGs that speak about other types of awards. It can be also argued that WP:ANYBIO is also met in that her AVN award is well-known and notable to those readers who appreciate her genre (personally, I do not). If a detemination is made that awards given for group efforts are inherently non-notable, no matter which organization is giving them or why, we will have a lot of rewriting of guideline in the next few months. But naturally AFD is not the place to rewrite guideline, but rather to apply the ones we have. {struck above) Delete per lack of verifiability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The deal here is not the guideline but the verifibiliaty... the fact that she is not not mentioned in the AVN awards announcement as she is not mentioned in the IAFD and AVN pages for that title makes me reasonably doubt she had more than an uncredited, extra role in that movie and in that scene.--Cavarrone (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, you're right. Well, if it turns out the sources I added are just things someone made up, I won't have a problem with a delete. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long-time contributor of the IMDB site, with more than 3000 updates in the last seven years (and at least third of them are corrections), I cannot say I consider it a fully reliable source... and if today I decide to update that IMDB page deleting this award-winning or also deteting her from the cast of the movie you can feel sure that in a couple of weeks you'll have no traces of this source... about the "SweetTime Forum", obviously it is not reliable and probably "MoNutz", the author of the post, took the information just from imdb--Cavarrone (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, you'd likely also have to include evidence, such as screenshots or video clips of the onscreen credits to confirm to them that your removal was valid. And shortly after such a deletion, someone would submitt a re-add based upon the AVN review which lists her as minor cast. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMDB is NOT reliable as it is user-edited like Wikipedia. It would be akin to using Wikipedia itself as a source. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          To clarify, IMDB is NOT user edited, as users do not have any direct access to their databse. IMDB users may submit to the IMDB database editors, who then supposedly check the submitted information for accuracy before themselves making any additions or changes. IMDB's unreliability is seen through its failure offer any tranparency of their vetting processes, its inclusion of trivia, and its use of unregulated forums. It DOES include information that even Wikipedia grants is reliable, such as stats from the WGA, and such film information that can be found in the onscreen credits of the films themselves... but all we use it for here is as an EL in articles and a jumping off point in our own searches for reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
          • The "awards" section usually is reliable though (the "trivia" section, on the other hand...). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Using it as a jump-off point, the IMDB awards page links to the awarding organization, AVN... which itself shows that the film did win the award, but there is no indication that Kiwi in her minor role as "Zombie girl" actually received one herself. So though it might say so on IMDB, it does not on the AVN site, and when it comes down to who to believe, I'll go with the awardng organization, as they're in a better position to know. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment mmmmmmm.... I've changed my !vote from Weak Delete to Delete. I am increasingly concerned that her role in that movie was not more than an uncredit, unimportant extra role. CAVR and X Critic, the most known and probably the preeminent adult movie reviewer-sites, do not mention her among the cast members, on the other hand the AdultDVDTalk review lists her in the cast but does not cite her in any scene description.--Cavarrone (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would anyone object to my userfying this? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps better if you keep a copy of the article off of Wikipedia entirely, as BLP violations are always of concern. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already do have a copy of it, but the reason I suggest userfication is because the creation of the article was an honest mistake; apparently someone maliciously listed her as having won the AVN award on IMDb. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as the userfied version does not contain any violations, I would not oppose it being worked on in userspace. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not appropriate to have a biography of a living person unless there's some way to confirm that there's at least some element of the bio that isn't pure kayfabe.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is not a notable porn star. --Saladacaesar (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:PORNBIO is essentially a dead letter anyway, which is what happens when you overreach. Person does not meet GNG or come close; it is a BLP with zero reliable sources and must go. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  As stated at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability."  The same applies here, the actress satisfies WP:N through WP:PORNBIO, but is not an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiwi_Ling&oldid=1080188273"