Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Kaine


 * 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 Clear consensus to deleteMike Cline (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitney Kaine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Uncited after four years. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above - Fails GNG and PORNBIO, also a poorly sourced BLP. EuroPride (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment at Articles for deletion/Gillian Bonner and elsewhere--Milowent (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreferenced BLP used to defame living person. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:ENT and the GNG, only one GNews hit, and thats an advertisement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the consensus at the RfC was pretty clear that this distinction is not suitable for inclusion within itself, and the RfC was widely advertised with much more participation than at these AfD debates. Because of this sourcing requirement no subjects get automatic inclusion or "inherited notability", which is basically the argument that some editors are making above. I haven't found the level of coverage necessary to meet the GNG.  Them From  Space  21:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you know that until April 2009, WP:PORNBIO didn't even say playmates were automatically notable? That was apparently added by Morbidthoughts on April 2, 2009 because it reflected past AfD consensus.  Now that its been taken out, its being used (by some) to suggest these articles should now all be suddenly on the chopping block.  Law of unintended consequences I guess.--Milowent (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails all relevant guidelines and is totally unsourced. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:46, 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.