Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Williams (model)
- 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kimberly Williams (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to satisfy GNG, PORNBIO and all other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|(talk) 03:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn "glamour model" failing WP:ENT and all other relevant criteria, and per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep just as notable as the other Penthouse Pets. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As notable as all those Playmates whose articles were deleted in Apirl? EuroPride (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Pets were taken off the notability criteria for WP:PORNSTAR years ago by those who work on the porn articles. Playmates were only just recently removed by a push from the religious morality police here on WP. Williams was never a Playmate. Dismas|(talk) 00:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ugh, I wish the WP:PORN members would stop acting like such victims. Each time an article is deleted you'll attack the nominators with moronic names like "religious morality police". Really pathetic. There could be no minority "push" by anybody, to delete an article it requires consenus which any editor can add input and must cite relevant policy. If an article was deleted it means the closing admin found the arguments to delete more convincing than the opposing viewpoints. Your attempt to undermine the consensus with childish name calling will fall on deaf ears. EuroPride (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Pets were taken off the notability criteria for WP:PORNSTAR years ago by those who work on the porn articles. Playmates were only just recently removed by a push from the religious morality police here on WP. Williams was never a Playmate. Dismas|(talk) 00:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As notable as all those Playmates whose articles were deleted in Apirl? EuroPride (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.