Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiera King


 * 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. Like Spartaz said, there is no necessary detailed secondary reliable sources required by WP:BLP that is mentioned in this debate, with trumps a guideline like WP:PORNBIO and the keep commentators keep using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. Secret account 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Kiera King

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A BLP without a single reliable secondary source and the only claim to notability in the article would be from PORNBIO which no longer has consensus and is now disputed. Spartaz Humbug! 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This discussion has been inactive for over a month and no changes have been made to WP:PORNBIO, which is still a valid guideline on WP. Kiera King has been nominated for two XBIZ Awards for "New Starlet of the Year" in 2010 and "Best Supporting Actress" in 2014. Both of those are well-known and significant industry awards and none of them are scene-related. One of those awards is still pending, so lets not forget that there is a possibility that she might actually win it. Regardless of whether she wins or not, two individual performer award nominations are sufficient. The consensus established by this discussion concludes that newcomer awards in pornography such as the XBIZ Award for New Starlet of the Year are notable. Here is an AfD for Capri Anderson which concluded that a Best Supporting Actress award is also notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to comment that pornbio is marked as disputed, ergo it doesn't have consensus at this time. Its also not enforced so is clearly depreceated. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 23:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is unfortunately no consensus in this discussion here on how to change the current PORNBIO standard, but that does not mean that standard has been "clearly depreceated". It is true that PORNBIO does not currently receive much of any deference at DRV though. I personally feel that, at this late date, that the "disputed" tag should either be removed from PORNBIO or some form of dispute resolution is in order. I've been previously tempted to just act boldly & just change the PORNBIO standard in more restrictive way, but I'm not sure that would be constructive at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually (and thankfully), Guy, porn-related articles are getting a fair chance at DRV now. And I previously removed the disputed tag from WP:PORNBIO myself, but then it was reinstated.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 05:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're apparently living in a fantasy world if you think that DRV discussion is going anywhere "Erpert", and I can't help you with that. I am aware of the very recent edit history of the PORNBIO standard. Edit warring over it isn't going to help anything. Guy1890 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring? I removed the tag a single time. And I didn't comment in the WP:BIO talk page discussion about the topic at all.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per, well, everything Rebecca said. And the nominations were present at the time of this AfD.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 00:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let's say for second that PORNBIO has been "depreceated", which it hasn't...this article passes under the ANYBIO standard, since the subject here has "been nominated for a well-known and significant award several times". There is consensus that the "New Starlet of the Year" & "Best Supporting Actress" awards are both well-known & significant. Guy1890 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject fails the GNG. Article is a BLP without reliable independent sourcing. Subject's claimed award nominations are provided by a PR business and determined by its clients, highly suspect indicators of notability even before the extraordinarily high number of nominations in each category and the perpetually expanding number of award categories is taken into account. The community has repeatedly rejected the presumption that all individual porn awards meet the "well-known/significant" standard in the relevant guidelines. Instead, the community has taken the eminently sound and reasonable position that such BLPs without any significant, reliably sourced biographical content or other coverage should not be kept. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Subject's claimed award nominations are provided by a PR business and determined by its clients" This is an occasionally repeated claim that apparently has no objective facts to back it up. That it is unfortunately repeated again & again is really irrelevant. "The community has repeatedly rejected the presumption that all individual porn awards meet the 'well-known/significant' standard in the relevant guidelines"...and it's also rejected the idea (that you're subtly trying to push here) that basically no adult industry awards ever meet PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a biography without secondary sources.— S Marshall  T/C 12:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No independent notability info. The mentioned award is a routine one issued to hundreds. - Altenmann >t 18:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's one thing to get nominated for major awards by major independent nominators, e.g. if you're repeatedly on the Nobel Committee's short list of 300 people for the Nobel Prize.  It's another thing for small-name awards when we don't have solid evidence about who does the nominating.  For some awards, anyone can do the nominating, so a loose reading of WP:ANYBIO would mean that anyone could self-nominate until they'd passed the WP:ANYBIO standards.  We shouldn't have an article unless in the future she clearly passes the standard of getting multiple independent reliable sources, or unless she ends up doing something else that makes her clearly notable, like qualifying under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ATHLETE.  Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The two awards in question here have not been won by hundreds of people, and there is no evidence that the subject here has been "self-nominated" at all. Guy1890 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But you do agree that we are lacking the necessary detailed secondary reliable sources required by BLP for living persons' bios? Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could the article's sources be improved? Sure, but the article was only just created a few days ago. What this AfD appears to be about is circumventing PORNBIO, which was labelled as being "disputed" by none other than yourself. I don't appreciate that kind of behavior. Guy1890 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This AFD is about whether someone with no reliable sources to their name should have an article because of an outdated SNG which conflicts with BLP/GNG that only 3 editors defend says that they should. Plenty of uninvolved editors have commented on the discussion at WT:Notability (persons) and their view supports mine that PORNBIO can't be enforced and DRV and AN agrees with that position. Note that the 3 editors arguing to keep PORNBIO have all commented here. Spartaz Humbug! 23:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some reliable sources attached to the current article here. I've been advocating for changes to PORNBIO (both here & elsewhere) for months now, and, by my count, both your position and my position on the potential future composition of PORNBIO would likely lead to this article that's in question here to no loner meet our notability standards. You're an apparent, long-time DRV closer by your own accord "Spartaz", and that's also been discussed at length elsewhere. My point is simply this...what's the big rush? Guy1890 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable secondary sources in this article. There are: a self-published database, a kayfabe interview which plainly misrepresents the subject's career, a warmed-over press release, and a self-published nominations list. In the absence of suitable reliable sources, we should not have a BLP for this pseudonym. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The IAFD is a obviously not a database that was "self-published" by the article subject here. My understanding is that IAFD uses, in part, the required legal doumentation that is used to verify an adult performer's age, background, etc.. The interview in question here is merely used to highlight how the article subject originally got involved in the adult industry, which, while not being overly interesting, isn't controversial at all. As for the "warmed-over press release", who better to report on who was nominated for which awards then the agency that is administering those same award ceremonies? Wikipedia also does not have a moratorium on press releases as citations either, especially for non-controversial content. Lastly, the subject here obviously did not "self-publish" or "self-nominate" herself for any award. Again, would I choose to write an article exactly like the article in question here? Probably not, but that's really neither here nor there IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You plainly don't understand BLP requirements; you have things exactly backwards. WP:BLP says, unmistakeably, plain as day, Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. (There are limits on the use of subject-published sources, not really at issue here.) Your failure to understand such a simple point calls into question whether you should be involved with BLPs at all, and is inexplicable in an active, experienced editor. Even worse is your argument that a kayfabe interview (which contradicts the relevant published filmographies) is a reliable source for a BLP, "not overly interesting" or otherwise. It's hard to see any reason to believe you're not being deliberately disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again Mr. Wolfowitz, I understand that at least part of what you view your role here on Wikipedia is to be the "Wikipedia BLP Police", but, again, fortunately no one has died & left you with that role. There is, of course, no blanket moratorium on using self-published sources on Wikipedia, and there are, again, no self-published sources in use in the article in question here. In any event, our BLP guidelines state: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." One of the key phrases there is, of course, "contentious material". The BLP guidelines also state: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources." Again, press releases are not banned as sources on Wikipedia at all. The interview used here in the article in question isn't being used as a "filmography" at all...it's merely being used to add some completely non-controversial information, which could easily be removed from the article without seriously, negatively impacting it IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument that an article which passes PORNBIO should still be deleted if they don't pass GNG as well has been rejected by consensus several times. Some recent examples include Loona Luxx, Mike Adriano, and Celeste Star. The claim that articles which don't pass GNG violate BLP is also false. BLP simply requires an article to have a neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're plainly representing BLP in order to promote your view in this dispute. The three standards you list are minimum standards that every article must meet; they are not BLP-specific, and are not the only standards by which BLPs are assessed. WP:BLP states, plain as day, in its lede section, that BLP content "requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV); Verifiability (V); No original research (NOR)." You inexplicably mutilate this policy text to remove the heightened requirements enacted into policy to meet WMF requirements. BLP policy also goes on to require editors to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources," a standard that the press release and kayfabe sources in the article plainly fail. Your other argument is quite vacuous; that some articles challenged on GNG issues survive AFDs in no way proves that all of them should. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not "mutilate" policy text, I simply gave a brief explanation of what the BLP requirements are. What do you expect me to do? Copy the entire BLP page and paste it here? Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect you, like every other editor, to show good faith when discussing Wikipedia policies. You have not done so. ead, you have deliberately misrepresented the terms of BLP in order to push your side in a dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly what part of BLP did I "deliberately misrepresent"? We are here to discuss if the subject meets the WP notability guidelines, not if the article is BLP compliant, which it is so you're wasting your time trying to prove that it isn't. The article isn't an WP:Attack page, WP:BLPDELETE doesn't apply to this article because it doesn't contain any contentious material, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply because the subject hasn't requested deletion and this discussion has three "keep" votes so far so and BLPREQUESTDELETE states "the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion", meaning the "delete" vote must be unanimous and it isn't. I think that's everything, if I missed something else related to deletion of articles in the BLP page then let me know. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2013 (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.