Deletion of Kimberly Devine

Comment: If you look past the nominator's commentary about why he/she doesn't think the article belongs, you will see the nominator also cites policies and indicates that research looking for reliable sources was done.  This is more than many nominations on AfD have, and a detailed discussion of why the article lacks merit is certainly better than the many "delete per nom" or "keep per above" votes, and even the nominations that say "useless, delete" or "NN, Delete".  The fact is the nominator cites policies in their nomination, and indicates that they attempted to establish notability.  They should not be Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|bitten when they are citing WP policies in their nomination.  That said, the article fails the |general notability guidelines, and also fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:PORNO)

Comment: I have to echo Tabercil. This really sounds like . The fact is there is  which spells out criteria under which articles on Porn Stars -- and , so articles on porn stars are allowed -- are considered notable. I'm not commenting on whether or not this particular article (or any of the others nominated) meets PORNBIO or not; I do have to express concern over the nomination rationale
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:PORNBIO||WP:NOTCENSORED)