Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat (pornographic actress)

:{{la|Kat (pornographic actress)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kat_(pornographic_actress) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Kat (pornographic actress)}})

Fails PORNBIO for having only one non-scene related AVN nomination. Fails the general notability guidelines. With the exception of AVN, none of her biography is supported by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom and fails WP:PORNBIOCurb Chain (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO with just one individual nomination. No RS coverage found in search. Porn video sites as references for a BLP? This really needs to go. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:Pornbio is a subheading of WP:Entertainer, so when does criterea #3 ("Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment") come into play with pornographic film actors? In Hollywood films, Gene Hackman has the record with 73 film credits.[http://ask.yahoo.com/20030905.html] I'm not sure who has the record in adult films, but in my opinion, having more than 250 film/video credits seems would seem to be prolific. Kat has 332 credits, and 1.67 nominations that should amount to something. I think there should be some parity between adult film entertainers and other entertainers. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

:*WP:PORNBIO is actually separate from WP:ENT. Performing in X number of porn films was taken out of PORNBIO a long time ago. Porn films are produced in large quantities. 300+ is above average but is nowhere near a record. Porn award nominations are also made in large numbers. Editors tightened up PORNBIO taking that into consideration. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

::*I've seen over 900 credits, and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody did over 1,200. My geeky side would want to do a statistical study of all porn actors, even those who appear in a one or two videos, and figure out what the 90th, 95th, or 98th percentile would be and suggest a number that could be considered prolific. When I first got involved in Wikipedia and considered what to do for creating my first article, it was suggested in the helpfile to write about what you are interested in. At that time I thought porn would be interesting, and I wanted to make a point that porn is a part of our shared culture that should be written about encyclopedically because it's an important part of popular culture. It's apparent to me that pornography isn't often discussed in main stream media (especially by respectable newspapers and cable news networks) because it's not deemed socially acceptable. There's a few exceptions, like when a performer is murdered or is arrested for a serious crime. I can go to most any TV series, say List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members and find bios on some performers that may have only had 2 or 3 roles ever (they are rare). However, since I'm a Trekkie, not having tons of red links and "once-existent-now-gone" pages really helps the interested fan get, in depth information on their favorite episode.

:::For the person who's really into porn performers (a pornee?) there's other places to go I guess. I still think that porn's popularity will largely be under-reported and kept in the shadows. That's probably not going to change. With the growth of Porn 2.0, the old days of popular "porn stars" who star in feature length films is pretty much over. As far as my interest in pornbios, don't expect me to weigh in these debates much in the future. Thank you to all who took the time to read this. -Stillwaterising (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Not the subject of multiple instances of substantial, independently-published coverage. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - this is the saddest excuse for a pornbio I've yet seen; mostly useless, and sometimes disgusting, trivia. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2012 (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.