Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington

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 keep. This close is explicitly without prejudice to renomination if the RFC removes the relevant criterion from WP:PORNBIO. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Carrington[edit]

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 WP:BLP1E example. Beyond appearing in a magazine once, there is zero notability. JBsupreme (talk)

  • 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 Playboy Playmate article. As long the model meets 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 Farrah Fawcett, Lisa Rinna, Samantha Fox, Kristy Swanson - all of whom posed nude and all of whom appeared on Playboy's cover, none of whom get the XXX stamp on the talk page. WP:PORNSTAR is nonsensical and unevenly applied, and promotes an inherently controversial claim w/r/t Playmates; RFC or no RFC, I don't see why the closing admin should feel obligated to even temporarily honor PORNSTAR ahead of WP:BLP. 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 an RFC going on right now as to whether Playmates are notable simply for being Playmates. Instead of cherry picking this Playmate or that Playmate (since that seems to be the central issue, "is a Playmate notable for just being a Playmate"), this should be decided on a broader basis. Futhermore, there is a history of Playmate articles being kept on the basis of 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]
  • Delete- Without the exemption for notability porn bio, she is clearly not notable at all. Off2riorob (talk) 09:50, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kelly_Carrington&oldid=1068864332"