Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Franklin (2nd nomination)

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. Majorly (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Franklin (2nd nomination)[edit]

A prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Franklin was overturned at deletion review based on the undiscussed tidbit that the video named after her is a compilation, so not covered under WP:PORNBIO, so we're back here now for more discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion (other than the question: Does porn fall under "media and music" or "fiction and the arts"?). ~ trialsanderrors 07:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although this article technically fails WP:PORNBIO, the real reason to delete it is because it is crap. Poorly written, unreferenced, uninformative, overtly perverse, irredeemable crap. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: With all due respect Anetode, none of those reasons are valid deletion reasons. Poor writing can be cleaned up, references can be added, information can be found, wikipedia is uncensored, and the article can always be fixed up. I do take issue with the overly liberal criterion in WP:PORNBIO however, it seems pornstars are subject to a much lower standard of notability than any other field of entertainer or public figure, specifically the "any video named after them" bit includes a lot of trivial artists. If she passes pornbio, we have no choice but to keep, though. Perhaps we ought to look at trying to tighten up pornbio to control some of the pornocruft. Wintermut3 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that all of these concerns can be addressed by completely rewriting the article, I've done that to several underappreciated stubs before[1]. However I do not think that it is worth it in this case. Sometimes the best action to take w/r/t a crappy article is to flush it down the toilet. Not always, and certainly not because of subject matter in general, but I think that there is nothing wrong with subjecting articles to harsh criticism if they have little, if any, redeeming qualities. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am open to being convinced otherwise, but since the issue at hand from the original nomination was her meeting the criteria set in WP:PORNBIO. After research and tedious debate, she does not. To everyone who says the standard needs to be changed if you don't like it, we have tons of discussion going on in the talk page of PORNBIO. If consensus changes such that she becomes notable under them, then I will be the first to say keep her. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete WP:PORNBIO while we're at it-porn stars should be the same as everyone else, they pass WP:BIO and they stay or they fail it and go. This particular one doesn't even pass either, however. Seraphimblade 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere in WP:PORNBIO does it say that having "any video named after them" is a criterion. The criterion is quite specific that it be an original film, not a compilation. Franklin has a compilation with her name in the title, not an original film. The article meets Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #7 under the Articles section in that it fails to assert the importance or significance of its subject. (The article can't be nominated for speedy deletion any longer because of the previous AfD. The only information in the article that is sourced is her year and place of birth, her height, and her half-sister's name. The only other information available at the source listed (her IMDb profile) is her videography. All of the other information in the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability.—Chidom ^talk 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable, has WP:V problems per Chidom. delldot | talk 21:43, 15 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.