Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Franklin

Add links
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 was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Franklin[edit]

Kimberly Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unencyclopedic, fails WP:PORNBIO ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, so she does. Still it seems like an arbitrary criterion with no reasons offered to explain why it qualifies a performer as famous. There are hundreds of porn stars like Franklin who have these horribly written stubs about them on Wikipedia simply because they appeal sexually to some contributor. Drafting the pornbio notability criteria was a good-minded effort at cleaning out some of these stubs by subjecting them to several clearly stated guidelines. However that effort is merely a codification of the judgement that minor porn stars (performers who make movies for several years, keep their real names private, and never break into the "mainstream" world of acting) should probably be excluded. An article about one of these stars, especially one that includes a useless and graphic transcription of a lesbian sex scene but does not offer any real biographical details, not even a filmography, is basically a crappy stub with no reason to exist. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, she doesn't. The film in question is a compilation, not an original film, as is the criterion. She fails WP:PORNBIO.—Chidom talk  07:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as MER-c says, she passes WP:PORNBIO which technically makes her notable enough. Jayden54 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She was certainly honored by the production of A Cum Sucking Whore Named Kimberly Franklin, but what is it about such dubious recognition that makes her notable? (technicalities aside) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's assumed that only studs/starlets who have achieved a certain level of reknown in the industry merit being titular (no pun intended, however Beavis and Butthead it is) stars. Caknuck 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It means that the porno production house had a bunch of stock scenes featuring Kimberly Franklin that they decided to hastily throw together for a DVD. Some company's attempt to milk licensed footage by publishing it over and over does not necessarily signify renown. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but wikify and cite sources Alf photoman 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's a nobody and this article wastes server space that we are asking people to donate to pay for. Greg Grahame 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO. Caknuck 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO Delete as this article is not encyclopedic despite apparently meeting PORNO criteria. (It certainly seems silly that we keep poorly written and useless articles about nobody's simply because they meet one criteria out of the full Wiki list !) Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Flaws in the writing of the article itself (such as including a "useless and graphic transcription of a graphic lesbian sex scene" or being "poorly written") should inspire someone to expend effort improving the article; they are not grounds for deleting the entry. --152.121.17.61 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite technically meeting WP:PORNBIO. The criterion are a guideline for what is notable, not hard and fast rules. There is no evidence to suggest that simply having her name in the title lends any status or recognition to her in the industry. Call this vote WP:IAR, if you must. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 16:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anything that meets a guideline which has as it reason to exist preventing articles from being created should be kept. Vegaswikian 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO, as criterion 7 requires an original film, not a compilation. A Cum Sucking Whore Named Kimberly Franklin is a compilation of scenes from her other videos.—Chidom talk  02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this slut passes WP:PORNBIO. Technically that makes her notable...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:26, 7 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimberly_Franklin&oldid=1137971906"