Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (porn star) (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten (porn star)[edit]

Kitten meets one of the WP:PORNBIO criteria: she was nominated for an AVN Award. But according to WP:BIO, "meeting one or more [of the specialized criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Beside her nomination, Kitten is otherwise non-notable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please read the talk page discussion that led to this AfD. The single AVN nomination is the only reed to lean on and it's a weak one. WP:PORNBIO helps define notability in biographies of pornographic actors. In itself though, it's not dispositive. David in DC (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't even read the article, but it help if you could elaborate. The other two editors seems to disagree with you on this. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We all agree that the article passes PORNBIO, but the others are arguing that in this instance PORNBIO should be ignored. Epbr123 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not usually comment on this topic, but I am quite startled at the reason given for deletion, which amounts to Delete it Because I Want to Delete It. The reason we have specialized criteria is for specialized cases. My keep is on the basis of no understandable reason for deletion given. There might actually be one, so i invite Malik to explain what he really means. DGG (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What it means is that there was an article that was seven words long, not counting the mention of the AVN Award nomination. WP:BIO says that an award nomination by itself isn't necessarily sufficient reason to include an article about a person. Several editors discussed the situation on the Talk page, and the consensus seemed to be that the Kitten isn't notable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources seems to indicate there's nothing to cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith (talk • contribs) 00:46, January 30, 2009

Comment The above comment was made by Valrith. The fact that Valrith failled to use his four tildes here makes me feel good. I did it recently and was mortified. Thanks for the solidarity. :) David in DC (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. :) Valrith (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On the basis of WP:BIO1E / WP:ONEVENT. She didn't even win Urban Spice best anal performer. Her husband is only notable for AVN awards and for being married to another porn star. There is nothing notable about a porn star being married to the ex-husband of a fairly well known porn star, so Kitten is surely only notable for her AVN and nothing else. Which is mentioned in the AVN awards page, so she doesn't need a separate biography. She has to meet the general criteria for a bio, whether she meets the pornbio sub-criteria or not, surely? I'm presuming they only exist to explain that starring in porn films is not notable in itself, and neither is winning anything but the Oscar of porn awards. Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for your information, articles aren't required to also meet the general criteria if they meet the sub-criteria. Otherwise, the sub-criteria would be rather redundant. Also, the sub-criteria doesn't state that someone has to win "the Oscar of porn awards"; they just have to be a nominee. Epbr123 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relationships do not confer notability. Article contains very little content. Is the star signed to a studio? Star in any notable videos? Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kitten passes WP:PORNBIO. The nomination is playing primary and secondary criteria of WP:BIO against each other. Kitten's contributions to porn are credibly acknowledged with the AVN nomination. Current consensus is that such people are of interest and that article stubs will get expanded eventually. And that is usually good enough. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2009 (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.