Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine

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. MBisanz talk 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Devine

[edit]
Kimberly Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I know I don't edit Wikipedia much, but I spend hours reading articles here and when I found this one (and a couple of others like it) I started to read on some policy and decided that maybe it really doesn't belong, and I honestly don't think that it does. There are no sources, first of all, and then second of all, it looks like it was written by a fan. At worst, it's self-promotional. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia has several policies, including: no original research, notability, and verifiability. This article doesn't fall into line with any of them. Being a transsexual porn star shouldn't qualify as automatically being notable, and I've done searching and there's literally no mainstream press about this person. I've since found that Wikipedia has a lot of articles about porn stars, with most of them not being notable (and notability in this regard would require at least some mainstream press). I have no idea how to nominate multiple articles, because this isn't the only one that doesn't have any sources and has no notability, but maybe it's best for more experienced people to handle them. Wikipedia should at the very least maintain some level of standard for articles, otherwise anyone who has ever appeared in an adult video or who is an "exotic" entertainer could have an article just because they have some fans. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia intended to be the "sum of all human knowledge". In my opinion, a lot of these articles don't add to that mission, which is becoming more important day by day as the project grows as well as its readership. Wikipedia needs to be taken seriously. MartinShadow (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (for now)... so how does your argument differ from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Tabercil (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to echo Tabercil. This really sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is there is WP:PORNBIO which spells out criteria under which articles on Porn Stars -- and WP:NOTCENSORED, so articles on porn stars are allowed -- are considered notable. I'm not commenting on whether or not this particular article (or any of the others nominated) meets PORNBIO or not; I do have to express concern over the nomination rationale. 23skidoo (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination differs from IDONTLIKEIT by citing 3 policies and telling us that some effort was made to find sources, but was unsuccessful (I like nominators who at least make an effort). If you try and look for reliable sources yourself I don't think you will find any (I didn't), but good luck. Delete if none are found. Juzhong (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was responding in part to the nominator placing several additional porn articles in quick succession up for AFD -- articles that are verifiable. I placed it here as this is the initial AFD of the "set". The fact I have not chosen a keep or delete option should be evidence that I am undertaking exactly what you suggest. 23skidoo (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you look past the nominator's commentary about why he/she doesn't think the article belongs, you will see the nominator also cites policies and indicates that research looking for reliable sources was done. This is more than many nominations on AfD have, and a detailed discussion of why the article lacks merit is certainly better than the many "delete per nom" or "keep per above" votes, and even the nominations that say "useless, delete" or "NN, Delete". The fact is the nominator cites policies in their nomination, and indicates that they attempted to establish notability. They should not be bitten when they are citing WP policies in their nomination. That said, the article fails the general notability guidelines, and also fails WP:PORNO. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It is possible that her career is notable, but the article offers no evidence. DGG (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article does not establish notability of the subject. Tatarian (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, exactly as DGG lays out: she probably is notable, but there's no evidence. From what I can tell, her career predates when the major adult awards had specific transsexual award categories (e.g., AVN didn't add a Transsexual Performer of the Year category until 2004). Tabercil (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (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/Kimberly_Devine&oldid=1068863817"