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. Fails WP:PORNBIO, and arguments to keep the article either directly contradict that guideline or ignore our policies on what Wikipedia is not (i.e., a place to keep things that might eventually become notable). slakr^\ talk / 05:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Leigh[edit]

Kennedy Leigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing for this BLP. No nontrivial reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP with negligible edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk) (en-2) 18:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How does this actress pass PORNBIO? The scene-related award win does not count. PORNBIO was recently changed to exclude nominations. No obvious unique contributions to porn. I haven't found non-trivial reliable source coverage in searches. Do you see something there that I don't see? • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO without awards and fails GNG without non-trivial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with User:Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She's won an AVN Award. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So what? You know perfectly well that PORNBIO expressly excludes scene-related awards from establishing notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although she does not meet requirements of WP:PORNBIO according to the current criteria, it's reasonable to assume that she'll soon pass it due to her young age (19) and as already mentioned an AVN award already under her belt. A ton of other articles on pornographic actresses exist that fail PORNBIO and have much less potential in ever passing that are not challenged for deletion which leads me to assume (I'm probably wrong) that there are other criteria in play when judging to keep/delete or that the process is selective according to who has the motivation to nominate an article. Hanswar32 (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The last above sounds also like Crystal Ball. Davidships (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Scalhotrod. Nymf (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As set out in the nomination, she fails the porn bio guidelines. Some of the above sound like "other stuff exists" or crystal ball. If there are other articles that fail our guidelines, they should also be deleted. If the person does not yet meet the criteria, we do not have an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The truth is, I do agree with you in principle. My opinion is that we should first delete porn articles that exist (in abundance) which have no potential of ever being re-created then to focus on and delete an article which has a high probability of being re-created within a few months to a year. This logic doesn't require a person with a crystal ball (which is utter nonsense) to see. Hanswar32 (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not "utter nonsense" - please read WP:CRYSTAL, which is what is being referred to (along with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. She does not meet the current guideline. If she does something to establish notability, the article can easily be re-created.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2014 (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.