Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kestrin Pantera (3rd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Kestrin Pantera
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Recreated shortly after last AfD and has not been worked on since. Brad 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable actress, model, and musician. I am an inclusionist, and proud of it.  I especially like to support musicians who play music that is not on the pop charts (Blues, folk, Classical, jazz, etc.).  I am also partial to cellists, since I used to play the cello myself. Assuming everything on it is true, her IMdB listing is pretty extensive.  But I looked over her roles.  They were all minor roles, generally in the "rest of cast listed alphabetically" section.  Her role in "Expired" didn't even have a name - it was "Pregnant Woman."  Similarly, in "Prometheus and the Butcher," she is credited as "Doo-Whop Girl."  Likewise, in "Surviving Eden," she was "Reporter #1."  In "IP" she was "Brunette", but she was also credited as "aka Susan."  Her only real supporting role was in "Stars and Suns."  Her "front cover" on the magazine was that of a model, not about her.  I quite frankly, can't find any reliable sources about her music.  When she makes it big, then we can have an article about her.  But now, this is a puff piece that shows zero notability. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Oddly enough, the NY Times did this piece on her marriage. It looks like one of those lifestyle puff pieces.  It is a reliable source, but tellingly, does not make any statement as to why she is notable.  It appears that she and her husband had a suitable interesting story to eb the subject of a lifestyle article on weddings.  Aside from that, I see no coverage about her or her work that would establish notability.  The articel consists of a lot of name dropping, and makes an assertion that she is notable for her role in "Expired".  That's an incredibly weak claim to notability when the role is "Pregnant woman" buried at teh back of the cast list.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

*Comment WP:PORNBIO has been tweaked and changed and argued over for months. And now, despite the continued (and now inappropriate) inclusion of the word "model" in its hearder, it is no longer applicable to Playboy Playmates. As currently incarnated, it stresses those involved in pornographic films and their various porn awards. I believe it is accepted that porn film stars do not usually get into Playboy, and conversely that Playboy playmates do not usually do porn films. This is now at odds with PORNBIO still stating that it addresses "Pornographic actors and models"... secially when all its sub-criteria now apply only toward persons actually involved in porn films... and no longer address individuals who are not. So the problem in using this section of BIO for these individuals is seen in that even though it still includes the word "model" in its header, it now only addresses notability of persons in some way involved in the making of porn films. So use of this particular guideline and its various sub-sets has become inapplicable to BLPs of persons NOT actually involved in porn films. It's like using a thermometer to measure gravity... the measuring device being used is just not correct for the task at hand. Heck... we might as well state that these women fail WP:ATH as well. Editors might perhaps look toward more applicable guidelines... and in this case we might better consider WP:GNG for determining if someone is worthy of note. With the Playboy appearance being an initial source toward notability, all we need do now is find enough other sources to show meeting WP:GNG and they become keepers. While WP:NTEMP is worth arguing, consensus has indeed declared that notability is indeed temporary. The safest course is to find the aditional few sources in addition to Playboy to support the notability once offered by being a playmate... and using guidelines other than the now inapplicable PORNBIO.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's a lovely essay and all, but this nomination isn't based on WP:PORNBIO, and there is indication anywhere that the subject of this AFD is in any way related to the pornography industry. -- Whpq (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Sorry. Lovely or not, it was meant for a differnt AFD alltogether. My bad. Have struck.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearian.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2010 (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.