Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Kole

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. Courcelles 23:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Kole[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any relevant SNG. Only one nomination (group scene), no mainstream credits, no non-spurious GNews or GBooks hits, no reliable sourcing, no meaningful biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nomination for a single award is not notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a way, this article reminds me of one day not too long ago-- well, actually it was a few years ago, now that I think of it... seven maybe-- when I was reading a book about some particular subject-- I forget now what it was specifically, but that is not important, the point is that it was something that one should not at all reasonably hope to find a justification for the existence of an article on at Wikipedia, because the thing the book was about was certainly not notable enough to gain approval from all the best editors here, and it got me to wondering what one would do if one found a book-- or even two-- covering vast ranges of subjects that were not notable, that is, not acceptable to us guardians of the gate of articles at Wikipedia, reliably and significantly covering these subjects, and how would we then prove that these non-notable subjects, having books written on them, were nevertheless non-notable, because even though Wikipedia claims that a source, or more specifically sources, on particular subjects-- unless they're subjects no one pays attention to-- to all intents and purposes, constitutes notability for the subject in question, we would probably have to discredit the book itself, claiming it itself was non-notable since, most likely, it would not have a book written on it-- sure, maybe a passing mention in a magazine review, but that only counts for subjects we like-- or maybe that the book was unreliable simply because it covered non-notable subjects, i.e., subjects not covered at Wikipeida, which no self-respecting author of significant and reliable sourcing would ever do, and that therefore any subject written about in the book is non-notable, and therefore, in a roundabout manner, unworthy of coverage here at our project covering the some-- just the bits we like-- of human knowledge, though perhaps, ultimately, these reminiscences are moot since the subject of this AfD does not have a book written on it-- or at least not one that anyone who has edited the article has listed at the article (I'm guessing here, because I haven't even looked at the article), and I certainly don't have enough interest in the subject to waste time looking for one, and, because I don't like it anyway, and would keep quiet about it even if I found one... Anyway, have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 03:17, 24 July 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.