Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Knight

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Knight

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

Fails gng and pornbio. I source plus an interview are not enough to pass gng and there is nothing that suggests pornbio is in play. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps your hostility to pornography has caused you forget to what WP:PORNBIO actually says. "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." Knight was the host of Playboy TV's top-rated show, appeared in a comedy film, multiple rap videos, and album covers, and was featured in an ad campaign for Pony athletic gear. She also hosted and co-produced the Hip Hop Honeys series of films. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Featured != appeared in. Its a more significant test and in any case a technical sng pass does not mean the article stays if it is clearly failing the gng. So how does this pass gng old boy? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete featured is not the same as appearing in. Anyway it is high time we start actually holding more articles to GNG which this one does not at all meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing falls far below BLP standards. No real claim to meeting PORNBIO requirements. Most of the article's claims are sourced to the "Panache Report", and appear to be exaggerated or embellished; the site is probably self-published, and clearly is no more than questionable under RS. As JPL accurately notes, mere appearances do not automatically meet the "featured" threshold, and several of the cited appearances are in any event not mainstream. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- un unremarkable adult actor; mainstream appearances do not rise to the level of what's expected of BLPs.K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 19 April 2017 (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.