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. Shimeru (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kataxenna[edit]

Kataxenna (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)

Nonnotable "glamour model"; promotionally written article repeatedly recreated after speedy deletion. Fails WP:ENT, one role in nn film. Zero GNews hits, zero GBooks hits, no reliable independent sourcing. Virtually all refs/links supporting article are published by article subject, otherwise self-published, or fall into standard categories of unreliability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In what way is the article promotionally written? Speedy deletion was too hasty before introduction of added sources. WP:ENT failure is extremely debateable due to subjects involvement in latex glamour industry, style of modelling and crossover into film(albeit a sole one that received press coverage). As for sourcing, sources no more or less reliable than general standard of many articles throughout Wikipedia. Also after one single day how can editors improve upon the quality of the sourcing and overall article? Dcnailed (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom, with the exception that it's not really promotionally written, merely non-notable and the references dodgy. KaySL (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcnailed (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of independent reliable sources supporting notability (which is why it's been A7 speedied 4 times). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of verifiable, reliable, third-party sources which show notability. This article fails in all ways. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:13, 9 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.