Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate's Playground (second nomination)

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 Move to Kate Ground - Yomanganitalk 00:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate's Playground

While the creator of the website might (just barely) be notable, this article is about the website, not its owner. As such, the notability standards in WP:WEB apply, and I do not believe they are met. -- Merope Talk 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment – has a reasonable traffic rank of 5,240, compared to other similar models who have their own extensive articles on Wikipedia. But, I abstain for now. — FireFox (~) 15:28, 08 October 2006
    • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, as indeed is exemplified by the fact that Tiffany Teen cites no sources whatsoever and is chock full of weasel words and original research. Uncle G 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WTF. Merpoe you are just trolling me now. http://www.google.com/search?&rls=en&q=kate's+playground, this article is #4. Keep it. It is very handy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbath (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Article discusses both site and person; nominator is splitting hairs. And in any case, Kate Ground has been published at least twice in Playboy special editions. Haikupoet 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Then the article should be moved to "Kate Ground". And cleaned up. -- Merope Talk 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see anything in the notability criteria about appearing in special editions of Playboy. Non-notable as either person or website per the criteria that actually exist. Valrith 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep'* There is not a lot of valid information on this level of glamour models. This listing shows actually valid information.Theendprt 23:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete However "valid" the information, it does not give an indication of this site meeting WP:WEB. The person is a very borderline case for notability, and I would say falls on just the wrong side of WP:BIO. GassyGuy 02:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN DXRAW 06:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. First of all, I am among those who looked this page up out of curiosity, as this model does seem to be rather ubiquitous on the Internet. While this may not be the place to question WP:WEB, I would argue that there is some bias in the criteria's demand for websites to have been noted in print. Alexa.com has Kate's Playground ranked about 5,000th in Internet traffic, whereas Maddox's website is ranked about 6,500th and This Week in Tech's website is ranked below 10,000th. I'm certainly not saying Kate's Playground is the most interesting of these sites, just that it is extremely popular on the Internet. G Rose 11:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The requirement is not bias, except inasmuch as it focuses on the goal of writing a verifiable encyclopaedia, which requires sources (and hence things to have been written about the web site), and not on the goal of creating pages for web sites that just happen to have an arbitrarily selected Alexa ranking one week. Uncle G 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- pretty clearly fails WP:WEB--Storkk 14:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is (at least) the second nomination for this topic; why isn't the earlier one(s) linked here? I see the article no longer contains one of the claims of notability: That her malformed foot has made her notorious among people who pay attention to this sort of thing. No vote but I haven't been persuaded that the website meets WP:WEB, nor that the person meets WP:BIO. Barno 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Why isn't the first nomination linked? There's a very good reason for that: I suck. It's up there now. -- Merope Talk 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That will at least let newcomers see what was presented as evidence (Alexa ranking, mainly) and what policy arguments were put forward. I see that I previously voted "weak keep" based mainly on Alexa, but I haven't seen external coverage cited since then, and I'm leaning more toward the "not notable" view. Barno 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The business about her foot has been restored. There is one person, possibly two, possibly more people, persistently trying to remove that particular paragraph from the page. Haikupoet 19:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. The person probably passes WP:BIO, and most of the article would fit there. So my vote might possibly be move to Kate Ground, add a link from the Kate disambig page, edit out things specific to the web site, and delete redirect. But most subsets of that are plausible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I must admit, the article seems to focus on Kate rather than her website, so I would support moving the content to a Kate Ground page (or perhaps, less confusingly, Kate (adult model)). Although Kate's notability per WP:BIO may depend upon one's interpretation of "widely recognized entertainment personality", she is certainly a well-established Internet pornography model. As a side note, if WP:PORNBIO becomes official in its current state, there would be no question of keeping this article. G Rose 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:WEB. I echo much of the above, viz. if the article is recrafted about the person, that might be different. Eusebeus 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, and failing that, definitely move to Kate Ground and apply WP:BIO rigorously. Some WP:V wouldn't hurt either. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Perhaps moving the article to Kate Ground is the correct answer here? I think there's a decent case here that the model is more notable than the website, and a page move would be a trivial matter. Haikupoet 00:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- shes bare fit Deadbath 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    ... pardon? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    ..... she is bare fit so bare keep her innit blud 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)~ ;)
    I don't speak that dialect so I don't know what you're saying. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Kate Ground. Anyone seraching for Kate's Playground will find info there. Interestingly, there are no issues over at the French Wikipedia article of Kate Ground. --Marriedtofilm 21:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per haikupoet GShton 04:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Kate Ground. Crumbsucker 23:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Glad I found this before it is deleted, I had heard the rumors about the hoof! --Factorylad 23:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
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.