Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Kraven


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Katrina Kraven

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails pornbio and gng. Nominations no longer count. Spartaz Humbug! 07:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to Admin; discard the above per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to Admin; discard comment by Tarc. Please read intro of WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline (red. only guideline, not rules or law). It is a generally accepted standard that editors should (red. not must) attempt (red. only attempt) to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply ".
 * even if not meet new version of pornbio, I base my vote for common sense: arguments: 9 nominations to awards, 5 x interwiki, 192 films, >0.5 mln results in Google... - for me, notable. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   23:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, guidelines can be ignored in select cases, but as your argument boils down to "I don't like WP:PORNBIO therefore keep because of lots of google hits, the article is on other Wikis, and lots of nominations", I doubt it will win anyone over. Tarc (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop conjectures and speculation. Slandering other users is a personal attack. I analyze a person and all arguments - person is notable or not, I do not look blindly only at pornobio. Pornobio is underdeveloped and no reasonable, must to improve. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   09:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "slander" here, there are jsut editors challenging your flawed arguments. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote "I don't like..." as my text, this is not my text, this is slanders or similar. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   13:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "this is slanders or similar" - You have absolutely no idea if Tarc is slandering you or not do you ?, You should buy a dictionary and read the definition of these words before using them!. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Faye Reagan AfD, you have called the changes to PORNBIO "too radical and idiotically." You have protested the guideline repeatedly. Saying that you don't like it is a fair assessment, not a personal attack. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was simply restating and summarizing the gist of your keep rationale. Seriously, have a cup of tea and simmer down a bit. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Multiple noms is no longer a pornbio criteria, also zero coverage in independent, reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing admin: the "vote" above should be discarded per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. If the only argument opposing deletion is merely "she's notable", then she's not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Coverage is mainly reprinted press releases in porn trade magazines. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Appeals for a common sense exception need verifiable evidence, which does not appear to be available. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per delete comments above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2015 (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.