Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty (porn star)

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 of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty (porn star)

Kitty (porn star) was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-10. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty (porn star)/2005-07-10.
  • Delete. Non-notable. Not every porn star should have an entry on wikipedia. There is no information here about her anyway; this is basically just an ad for her website. Her name apparently is inaccurate too so it should be renamed if it is kept but it should not be kept at all. If she is not known to the general public, or even most of the porn-watching public, she doesn't belong in wikipedia. csloat 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. --Dysepsion 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, 45 films at the imdb. If she is known to a reasonable number of the porn-watching public, she belongs in a comprehensive encyclopedia like wp. Kappa 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The IMDB isn't based on legions of fans creating articles; most pages are created and maintained by agents to help promote their clients. As a longtime member of the "porn-watching public", I will avow that I have not only never heard of her, but have never even seen her. This article is just an ad. Kafziel 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kappa (OMG!) User:Zoe|(talk) 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion has not changed since the last AFD discussion. No biographical sources are cited by the article, or were produced as a result of the prior AFD discussion. (The IMDB listing gives her date of birth and height in its biographical section. If that were all of the biographical source information required for a biography in an encyclopaedia, everyone with a passport or a driving licence would qualify.) Note that the place of birth given in this article has no source apart from the almost certainly entirely fictitious biography on the web site. People in the pornography industry are usually deliberately unverifiable by their own choice, for obvious reasons, and this person appears to be no exception. The purported biographies that accompany pornographic pictures are usually fiction, moreover. As before, delete. Uncle G 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We have plenty of biographies of fictional characters. Kappa 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously this is a broader subject than just this AfD, but fictional characters are verifiable in that we know what books/movies/etc. they're in, there's often published criticism concerning them, essays about them, etc. What's kind problematic here is that there's really nothing verifiably known about this person other than that she's been filmed having sex 35 times. --W.marsh 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, but we know that she's been filmed having sex 35 times!!! (ye gads). Indeed, IMDB knows that. BD2412 T 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information though, obviously. Biographies are written on verifiable information... it's just hard to see what's going to be verifiable here other than the contents of her IMDB page, that's what I meant. I'm sure this argument has been held before though. --W.marsh 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • As W.marsh points out, the fictional characters for which we have biographies have independent secondary source material available, such as third-party annotations of or commentaries on the works of fiction concerned. See the References section in Sherlock Holmes, for example. Uncle G 04:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • What sort of "proof" are you looking for? [1], [2] User:Zoe|(talk) 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I actually wrote "independent secondary source material". Ironically, the "proof" that you've offered is proof of my point. You've hyperlinked to a list of products for sale in a catalogue that contains no biographical information whatsoever and an on-line biography every field of which apart from the birthdate, ethnicity, and hair colour is "No data" — giving as much information about this person as a driving licence or a passport, as I said. I have a passport. Do I get an article? Uncle G 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Are you in the IMDb? Turnstep 20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
              • He could be, if he's willing to pay the fee for gold member access. For a few bucks, anybody can be in the IMDB. Kafziel 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
              • According to their homepage, there are 2 million people listed on IMDb. If we make an article for each of them, we've got a lot of work ahead of us. Kafziel 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Sounds good to me. You do the first million, then I'll do the second. :) Turnstep 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete commercial advertisement for non-notable pr0n-media product. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:44, Jan. 11, 2006
  • Delete - I watch A LOT of porn and I have never heard of her. I haven't heard of her, she ain't notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If a run-of-the-mill college basketball player played in 45 games over three years but had no major awards and was not a likely high-round draft pick in the NBA, we would kick his article out in a flash (that's not a hypothetical - we have done it many times). If a 21 year old girl appears in 45 videos in an industry that cranks them out in a matter of days, she's a "star" without a single shred of evidence. No awards, no critical acclaim, nothing but a list of her "body of work". Boggles my mind. -- DS1953 talk 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; ditto what Cyde Weys said, above. Kafziel 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What DS1953 said. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a star with no brillance.--MONGO 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DS1953 Reyk 06:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DS1953 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G and DS1953.
  • Delete. No sign of mention that are not actor listing or her site. gren グレン ? 10:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Serves no purpose except advertising. CalJW 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

* Keep as per Kappa --kingboyk 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Confusion between her and Kitty Jung. --kingboyk 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Uncle G, and it looks like advertising. Robin Johnson 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 45 movies for a porn star is not the same as 45 movies for a hollywood actor. Obli (Talk) 18:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the IMDb in itself is not an indicator notability. -R. fiend 19:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kappa BenBurch 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Cyde. Themusicking 20:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with DS1953, Uncle G, and Cyde Weys. Barno 20:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough for WP:BIO ,WP:BLP, per Obli, adult entertainer can be notable, but we can't use same movie or google counts as other potentially notable people.Obina 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'keep please this porn star is notable too Yuckfoo 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please, this pornstar is not notable Eusebeus 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but consider moving to "Kitty Jung (porn star)" instead. Is there a seperate set of criteria being used for adult film stars? In any case, this should be notable and WP:V enough. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Kitty Jung is a different porn star. Kappa 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • But external links suggests she is Kitty Jung. I think you're right and the article must be wrong. --kingboyk 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. Proto t c 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. We don't waive WP:V just because the subject has a lot of sex. --Malthusian (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not notable enough as one editor said indicates a level of notability. No work done on the article since the last AfD is not a reason to delete the article. If it was, we could flood AfD with many other articles. Being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. She is real, and there is information about her. Also if the article is correct, she is not American born. We know that some editors have raised a bias issue with articles of foreign subjects. Is this part of the reason there is little information available? In the end I don't see a reason to delete this article. I do see another article in need of impovement. Kappa is right on this one. Vegaswikian 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, IMO 45 film credits on IMDB generally makes someone notable enough for Wikipedia. VegaDark 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per csloat. Stifle 18:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for verifiability difficulties. Sliggy 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a big difference between 45 film credits, and 45 video credits over a period of less than two years. Ed g2s 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The difference between appearing in 45 commercial films and 45 porno videos is that each of the 45 porno videos constitutes a starring role. Porno films do not hire extras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.128.151.131 (talk • contribs)
    • I would argue that given the necessary talent to perform in the starring role, porn stars should be compared to stuntmen rather than Tom Cruise. --Malthusian (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep porn is notable.  Grue  13:40, 16 January 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.