Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Marie (3rd 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 Delete. Her main claim to fame is the one award, but that award is utterly non notable, as it is a choice by the readers from between the models in the magazine. 15 hits for the award don't really indicate much notability. So no reliable independent sources indicating notability for this model, means no article. Fram 13:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Previous AfD closed last month after a reference had been added. But is winning two awards in a non-notable porn magazine notable? You help me decide. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep God help me... but she does seem to satisfy WP:PORNBIO cat 3, as the magazine probably is notable within it's subgenre. However, this is an absolutely wretched article — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yeah, that's what I thought, but how can the magazine be notable within its subgenre yet not notable enough for an article?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:FisherQueen speedied the article on the magazine last month. Not really sure why; I'm not an admin so can't access the deleted WP version, but assuming it's the same as answers.com's cached version it could maybe have been AfD'd for insufficient notability (although I think it would have survived), but certainly isn't appropriate for speedy — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As I understand it, something's notable if other people (in WP:RS have taken non-trivial note of it). I don't think that's too likely with this magazine, but I couldn't say really.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Isn't that the whole problem with porn, and why we have separate guidelines for them; because it's not covered by the mainstream press, you have a bunch of magazines, companies, channels etc which all cover each other, but none of which constitutes enough of a RS to 'get the ball rolling'? — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yeah, porn articles present a few problems for Wikipedia. Some say we shouldn't have such articles at all, others say that WP:NOT#CENSORED, but it's hard to judge in many cases.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PORNBIO criteria 3. Epbr123 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did I really just see Epbr123 arguing to keep a minor porn model? What happened to everyone while I was away?!? — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 13:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the award Corpx 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This nomination is, well, unnecessary. Notability has already been established, and the subject still meets WP:PORNBIO today as much as it did a few weeks ago. Burntsauce 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable in her niceh, satisfies WP:PORNBIO. This one's a no-brainer. Xihr 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plumper of the Year! MarkinBoston 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - which is an award of questionable notability. Is it significant enough to the BBW erotica scene to merit an article? You tell me.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The award doesn't have to be notable. There just has to be evidence that she is one of the top BBW models. Epbr123 12:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The award has to be well-known (eg. notable). This one isn't. Valrith 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well-known doesn't mean notable. The award is possibly the most well-known award in the bbw genre. Anyway, it's criteria 3 that's being claimed she passes, not criteria 1. Epbr123 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's the debate that has been raised here that means that the WP:PORNBIO guidelines need to be made more clear, and less subjective. We need to explain why a model merits an article if they've won a well-known award, but not done anything else notable in particular.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Complete nobody. Beorhtric 11:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What policy does that violate exactly? WP:JNN? — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. No coverage in reliable sources means no verifiability. And that means no article is possible. Valrith 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Her website and XL Magazine are reliable sources. Epbr123 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of those is a reliable source. Both are simple self-promoting outlets. Valrith 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So XL Magazine isn't a reliable source that she won Plumper of the Year, and her website isn't a reliable source for her birth location? Do you mean they aren't independent sources? Epbr123 22:30, 28 August 2007 (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.