Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Bordenave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was merge/redirect to Colin Farrell. --Ezeu 16:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Bordenave

nn, some search results list her as a model, but only a few results come up when 'Farrell' is omitted from the search. Ckessler 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete article itself asserts her lack of notability. If spouses of famous people do not deserve their own articles, then their dalliances deserve even less --Deville (Talk) 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The main Colin Farrell article already has enough info on her (i.e. a sentence or two) - Richfife 04:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 06:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, she passes my threshold of notability, actually quite easily. snug 07:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How? She's only famous as the mother of a famous person's child. If she hadn't had sex with Colin Farrell, no one would have ever heard of her. Ckessler 08:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on past votes, I'm guessing User:Snugspout's threshold is "breathing". --Calton | Talk 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 09:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Colin Farrell nn enough to warrant her own article but i can imagine some diehard Colin Farrell fans searching for her, hence the redirect hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per Hoopydink —Mets501 (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - With redirect I suppose. She makes "thousands a month" and once had a small picture in Glamour. Not exactly impressive credentials. Wickethewok 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect as per Hoopydink. There's a place for her in Collin's page but not as a stand-alone. Interlingua talk 15:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence the subject meets WP:BIO criteria for inclusion.--Isotope23 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per Hoopydink. Sophy's Duckling 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP hottie. Brjatlick 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Mind pointing out the "HOTTIE" clause in WP:BIO? --Calton | Talk 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  •  :( should be Brjatlick 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect, just for the diehard Colin Farrell fans. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (S)Merge and Redirect non-notable except in the context of Farrell's baby's-mama. --Eivindt@c 08:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect is good. It would be a straight delete if there had not been progeny, I'd say. Again, I draw a parallel with the standard applied to Saryn Hooks. Just zis Guy you know? 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand; there actually appears to be quite a bit of news available about this model. She may have become noteworthy in connection to Farrell, but that notoriety has been sustained over a number of years. According to Lycos 50, she was a top search term in July 2005, with more searches than Colin himself: "On top of all this excitement, Kim Bordenave, the mother of Colin's son was more popular online than either, Farrell or Narain, up 470%." [1]. She was previously mentioned by Lycos 50 in March 2003, as one of the "Hot Women of Recent Vintage" edging out Naomi Watts for searches (at the time). If Colin's ex-flame Nicole Narain deserves an article, so does Bordenave. --LeflymanTalk 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Best known as the mother of " says it all, really. BlueValour 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nicole Nairain has an article because she is a Playboy Playmate. By the standards, that makes her notable, regardless of who she sleeps with. Ckessler 02:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
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.