Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Ko

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. --Coredesat 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina Ko

Katrina Ko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Minor porn actress, unsatisfactory sources. Deiz talk 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per not meeting notability guidelines for porngraphic biographies. Luke! 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - I just stumbled into this because it was on another person's talk page. I have never heard of Katrina Ko. However, I think wikipedia should be more inclusive than to delete things willy nilly. Furthermore, someone put some effort into writing it. Of note might be that this person is Canadian and there aren't that many Canadian porn stars. If there are, how many are Chinese Canadian? I presume that the initial author is in support because otherwise he would have never written about it. In theory, I am for Support because of my inclusion philosophy but in practice I don't care. Book burning anyone?TL500 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Note: Regarding the "neutral" comment above: User: TL500 was found to be a sockpuppet of User: Dereks1x who is the creator and practically sole editor of the article under review. Dereks1x was on a 48-hr block when this AFD was opened; the sock TL500 was writing here in evasion of Dereks1x's block. User: TL500 was subsequently blocked indefinitely. Tvoz |talk 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There are plenty of porn stars in the world- just because you can't think of any famous ones like her, doesn't mean she is notable. J Milburn 23:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per J Milburn. Everyone talks about adding stuff to various articles, but many times the work doesn't get done. It's better off deleted. GreenJoe 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Presuming that editors will be lazy is not a reason for deletion. As per WP:N, notability is generally permanent - if she passes WP:PORNBIO (and I'm not saying she does or she doesn't), then she deserves an article. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:59, 2 April 2007 (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.