Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Airs

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. Mailer Diablo 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Airs

Delete – Non-notable individual or, at best, very minor notability. (Not even a particularly well-known name in the sex-positive movement.) Article reads like a vanity piece. Only 620 unique Google hits when Wikipedia is excluded. Iamcuriousblue 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — non-notable, owning a small business and being involved with the chamber of commerce is insufficient notability for WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete could be a poster child for WP:BIO and/or WP:VANITY. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- though I'm familiar with Airs, when I saw this article I wondered whether she was notable enough, and I think she's probably not, absent further information (especially given that Grand Opening went under rather than becoming something bigger). Catamorphism 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When chcking on the notability of Kim Airs and Grand Openings, I came across this mention that Grand Opening had been bought out be Good Vibrations. That probably mentions some mention in the GV article. I'll add it soon. Iamcuriousblue 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what happened with that, though, as the new Good Vibes isn't in the same space where Grand Opening was (unless Grand Opening moved at some point), and they're not using the Grand Opening name at all, so be careful if you mention that (and don't believe anything the Herald says :P) Catamorphism 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Really, not even close. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although I do support the deletion of this article, doesn't it meet the criteria for speedy deletion as a biography of a non-notable person? --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I only do speedy deletion tags when its really really obvious that an article is patent nonsense, obvious vandalism, or something along those lines. If there are doubts about notability, I prefer to run it through an AfD to make sure there's consensus about the lack of notbility. Speedy deletion is a bit unilateral, usually the opinion of one tagger and one administrator, and I've seen perfectly good articles thrown out because two people happen to make the wrong call. Iamcuriousblue 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion might have worked here, though? Catamorphism 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a new one to me. Iamcuriousblue 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Better to be safe than sorry, right? --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment She seems non-notable from the article, especially the poor sourcing (owned an adult shop, now out of business, and joined some organizations) but I am curious about the Playboy mention. She apparently was the subject of a one-hour HBO special[1] (source is crappy gossip-like column on Boston.com) and the amateur show is mentioned in Daily Dig[2]. There is more... it seems she is at least somewhat notable. I am wondering if a cleanup might not be more appropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

At best, those programs make a case for the notability of the "You Ought to be in Pictures" event, but I really doubt even that's particularly notable. (Hard one to Google test considering since there's an old movie and popular song of the same name.) I haven't seen any of the two cable TV programs in question, but it sounds to me like these were just brief parts of a larger TV episode. Iamcuriousblue 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm neutral on whether this stays or goes, but I wanted to clarify: her store isn't out of business. At the beginning of 2006 she shifted it to online-only. FreplySpang 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you click through the links on the Grand Opening site, you quickly end up on www.sextoysex.com. If you go to the front page of Sextoysex.com, you'll see that its an online business with an affiliate program. If you go to their generic "Lesbian Front page", you'll see that the Grand Opening site is just that site plus the Grand Opening banner. If you click through the copyright information on the bottom of the Sextoysex.com home page for ownership information, you'd find that its run by a Dave Levine, through his company Convergence Inc. It goes without saying that none of this makes a case for Kim Airs notability; quite the opposite, in fact. Iamcuriousblue 16:10, 25 July 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.