Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Kemp

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. The sources appear to meet the minimum standard required for BLPs, and consensus appears to be that her porn career suffices for notability. Sandstein 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Kemp

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

One step removed from the biography of a living person with absolutely no references is the BLP with references which do no more than reference kayfabe backstory and cruft from IMDB. Apparently this article meets some poorly thought-out guideline, but it doesn't meet policies like WP:BLP and WP:V. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:PORNBIO. By the way, PORNBIO is part of WP:BLP. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken. I don't find one mention of WP:PORNBIO in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Wikipedia:Verifiability is there though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant WP:BIO. Either way, the article passes a guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unquestionably passes WP:PORNBIO with sources listed, clearly established under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors. Turgan ^Talk 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only that were a policy, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's not, so we are. All the article needs is referencing in line with BLP/V and I'll happily close the nomination. This shouldn't be hard if the subject is notable because independent, reliable sources are what notability boils down to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:PORNBIO, was a Playboy Playmate, for which I believe every single one ever has a page and trying to pick and choose will waste everyone's time. Reminds me of nom for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 74 (UK series), where nominator neglected to notice that article was one of 100s in a series. I deprodded this one when I saw nominator had prodded a raft of playmate articles in rapid successions without any examination evident.--Milowent (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Easily passes WP:PORNBIO. I suggest that the nominator read WP:POINT since they've AFD'd this article, deleted seven other Playmate articles, and prod'd at least a dozen more. Perhaps he should have looked into the applicable notability guidelines before going on his slash and burn quest. Dismas|^(talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator DELETED articles without prodding them? IF so, sounds like an editor needs deletion.--Milowent (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted articles were:

He claimed they were attack pages. I'd love to know what could possibly be taken as an attack on this example for instance. Dismas|^(talk) 04:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ridiculousness. I hate when I see people say this, but this really is the sort of thing (unilateral deletion, in this case) that drives away new editors.--Milowent (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a sudden outbreak of admins deleting unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs without discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Epbr123 (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it meets PORNBIO. No comment on the other articles (haven't looked yet) but if they were unsourced and then deleted I can only say this: GOOD. JBsupreme (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes PORNBIO. She also has some coverage [1]. Epbr123 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep Meets current, widely-accepted standard for inclusion, as reflected in WP guidelines. Townlake (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on misinterpretation of WP:PORNBIO#3 - The criteria on WP:PORNBIO is for deciding if a porn performer is notable. It's not a general notability criteria. Item 3 should be interpreted as "Every porn actress that has been featured on the cover of Playboy is notable", and not as "every woman featured on the cover of Playboy is notable". Thus, delete and ignore misguided keep votes by User:Joe Chill, User:Turgan, User:Milowent, User:Dismas, User:JBsupreme and User:Townlake. --Damiens.rf 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? All criteria 3 says is "Is a Playboy Playmate." How can there be a misinterpretation with that one simple sentence? "The criteria on WP:PORNBIO is for deciding if a porn performer is notable." And what about it? Your comments are nonsense. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Charlotte Kemp is not a porn performer, so her notability is not to be judged in terms of WP:PORNBIO. What's nonsense about that? --Damiens.rf 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is she not a porn performer? How does she not pass "Is a Playboy Playmate"? If your comment is so correct, why does it go against years of the guideline's use? Joe Chill (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Playmates are not the same as cover models. Dismas|^(talk) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually agree with Damiens that she's not a porn performer, and I don't think Playboy should live under the porn project, as it isn't pornography. However, that's not the way things are. Townlake (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, she passes WP:PORNBIO. Warrah (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One more that didn't get the point of WP:PORNBIO. --Damiens.rf 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a lot of us, no? ;) Warrah (talk) 01:28, 25 January 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.