Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Sunderland


 * 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 no consensus. This is a rather split opinion, so I'll close it as a no consensus, leaning keep. Tone 10:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Kendra Sunderland

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

BLP1E applies, aside from being unwillingly viral on pornhub and being fined for it, It appears that all the sourcing is standard porn ecosystem noise, and there is not sustained evidence of notability outside a single event, Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment as creator You can't be serious. In what reality, is The Independent part of the so-called "standard porn ecosystem"? In fact, the only specifically porn-related source here is AVN which was used to confirm that she signed a contract with Brazzers in 2020, even that could be replaced with Paper, which isn't a pornographic magazine. The source of the other job she had in college pre-dates the indecent exposure event. So how is this any different than Mia Khalifa (now a good article) who only had a "career" for 3 months and was only "notable" for being "number 1 on Pornhub" and performing in a hijab. Did she willingly go viral?Sunderland didn't disappear into obscurity (if that were the case, I never would have created this legitimate article and she still gets coverage to this day), she started a career. Two years after this, Rolling Stone was calling her "adult performer Kendra Sunderland" in a story about Ron Jeremy of all people. I'll never understand the goal post moving that goes on when the article is in the scope of porn. Not all of them have to write an op-ed in the New York Times. Trillfendi (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E surely doesn't apply as a successful porn actress with over 2 million Instagram followers can hardly be a "low profile individual." The Library Girl incident generated enough coverage to meet GNG, but it is not the only thing she is known for. That the Daily Beast published her article on being kicked off of IG is proof of that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Plenty of coverage about the "event" in the library, not sure it's enough for an article. Nothing of substance after than, seems run of the mill porn actress. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: If she really was known as Library Girl it would be sensible to create a redirect, if the article survives AfD. Pam  D  08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

and, notable has been established. Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Porn amateur busted in morals incident is a WP:DOGBITESMAN story in sex work. A minor porn award after going professional doesn't break this biography out of 1E territory. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep by significant coverage in ,
 * Two of those 3 sources, the New York Post and the Daily Star, are unreliable tabloids per WP:RSPS. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also per WP:RSP, AVN is generally reliable. So that alone settles the issue; she has significant coverage in secondary RS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure RSP accurately reflects the conclusion at [RSN which said the magazine is generally reliable, so stuff published in the site is not covered by that. Is your source printed or online? [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] Humbug! 08:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easily surpasses GNG. BLP1E does not apply since she did not remain a low-profile individual per Pawnkingthree after the incident. And yes, AVN ecosystem noise does count as RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Morbidthoughts and Pawnkingthree; easily meets GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Typical BLP1E. Being a non-notable porn actress following a one-off wider-than-the-porn-industry story is all that is here. Zaathras (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If she had never been heard from again after the library incident, there might be a case for BLP1E. But she became a porn actress instead, so she has not remained a "low profile individual" as BLP1E requires. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, she did remain a low-profile individual. "Low-profile" is about reality, not intent. Becoming an unremarkable, run-of-the-mill porn actress does not get her up out of 1-event territory. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No that's not what low-profile means. Someone who actively seeks publicity, as Sunderland does, is not low-profile regardless of whether or not she is notable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse but doing porn does not automatically make you publicity seeker. That’s ridiculous and a total distortion of how this works. Being outed involuntarily cannot create an assumption that you must get a scarlet letter just because you work in porn. If that hadn’t of happened we wouldn’t have this article at all as she is otherwise not notable and no more attention seeking than any other porn performer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Acting in Hollywood makes you high-profile but acting in pornographic movies means you've been outed? One is a publicity seeker if they're doing high-profile high-visibility work, doing interviews on that work, attending promotional events as the 'line-up' in the event, etc... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject lacks sustain reliable source coverage over a significant time. She does not pass notability guidelines over the long term, and the coverage of the one event is not in and of itself enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Where is independent coverage outside BLP1E. This is typical BLP1E fare.    scope_creep Talk  09:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I and others have already given examples of articles that came before or years after her so-called claim to fame, which contribute to significant / sustained coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment surprised this was still open; I've looked at the new info above, still nothing notable. One "incident" then just blended into the woodwork in the porn industry. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Such blending is called a career. Trillfendi (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 10:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per ProcrastinatingReader. Seems to meet the necessary bars. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete utterly trivial. The notability is one event.  DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)  DGG' ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pawnkingthree  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources. WP:BLP1E that does rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two pages in the peer reviewed Feminist Media Studies paper here. Besides the library coverage There's an assortment of media interest over the past 7 years, she has moved past the library video:, , , , , , , .  Pika voom  Talk 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets look at this shall we. The first lot of sources all relate to the library incident and later coverage is in the context of amateur porn or caming making the point that this is flash in the pan 1E territory without enduring independent coverage. So lets look at the evidence of enduring coverage cited; which is hardly making a case. Newsweek interview about caming, mens health? Sensational interview and quotes about dirty talk, indian express, reprint w/o a byline from a Daily Mail article, pornstar makeup FFS and tabloids like Daily Star & NY Post. None of this is an arguable case that there is enduring coverage so proving the 1E case. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You left out the part where the Feminist Studies journal article was published 2 years after the incident in your mistaken interpretation of BLP1E. Enduring independent coverage. You also have a mistaken understanding of what secondary vs. primary means in dismissing the Newsweek article as an interview. Reporters are allowed to interview people to write a story. This wasn't a transcript of a q&a here. Arguing that it's the same is dishonest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pawnkingthree, Trillfendi, and Morbidthoughts. Meets notability guidelines. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - Sufficient sources meet WP:GNG. Definitely not WP:BLP1E as she has coverage for more than the single event. Reliable sources exist. Fieari (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:GNG, fn3, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works, so the initial independent news coverage about the library incident (i.e. not churnalism, and not information directly from her, e.g. as in tabloid-style clickbait publications such as post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK) does not contribute much to notability. And per reliable sources, she was a WP:VICTIM because her video was uploaded to multiple websites without her consent, so the article should exist only if consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, [she] had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The available sources do not show the event is "well-documented" or "historic", and her inclusion in two and a half paragraphs at the beginning of a Feminist Media Studies article is not enough to support "historic significance", while later tabloid-style promotional coverage helps emphasize the lack of historic significance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The video was uploaded by a stranger without consent yet she consented to start a career in pornography after that. If she was a random person, it just would not be the same story. I mean, she still calls herself KSLibraryGirl. Trillfendi (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But WP:ENTERTAINER notability also does not appear supported - the criteria that may have applied, i.e. the "cult" following, has been deprecated. Feminist Media Studies comments, "the case of Kendra Sunderland is also recognizable as an increasingly ordinary narrative about working on the edges of mainstream cultural industries," so there does not appear to be objective support for unique or innovative contributions. This article reminds me of a concept I attribute to, which is essentially when insufficient independent and reliable support for notability exists, we are typically left with promotional content, and based on the type and quality of the sources, this appears to apply here. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's something else I often say, that in some forms of entertainment, there can be very little difference between promotional  and non-promotional  content. The manner of ever good descriptive writing is not always distinguishable. If we completely eliminated promotional   content in some subfields of entertainment we'd have no articles on current performers. I've withdrawn my delete--I'm undecided.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, there is sustained coverage from reliable sources providing significant coverage-- Mike 🗩 19:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient coverage. --GRuban (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2022 (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.