Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacklyn Lick

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. Randykitty (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacklyn Lick[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:PORNBIO #3. She has appeared in the notable mainstream films Orgazmo, The Big Lebowski, Bikini Planet (film), and Homo Erectus (film). --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The level of dialogue in these discussions is devolving. If people could elaborate on their reasoning, it would be helpful. @Subtropical-man: Merely voting "keep per above" is frowned upon. @Davey2010: You seem to have been copy/pasting "Delete as per nom - fails PORNBIO & GNG" into every pornstar AfD brought up by this nominator, making it seem like you are playing WP:WHACKAMOLE. Can you explain why you feel this person fails PORNBIO? Specifically why her many mainstream film appearances, a few of which I mentioned in my vote above, do not meet criterion 3 of PORNBIO, as I claimed they do? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to come up with a different !vote for each AFD am I ? ... If they pass or fail whatever guideline then I'll obviously state that, As for the Pornbio - She seems to have been a minor character one film and the rest all are IMHO non-notable so I believe she fails PORNBIO. –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know that she actually appeared in the The Big Lebowski. Also, PORNBIO mentions that one has to have "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media"...uncredited roles really aren't being "featured" at all. Guy1890 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reliable sources do not cover the subject in any fashion. "Sammy1339"'s assertion that the subject meets pornbio criteria #3 is easily refuted; between appearances in "Nasty Girls Masturbating 8" and "Blowjob Adventures of Dr. Fellatio 7", Ms. Lick's appearances in "notable mainstream films" are minor minor characters, background roles and uncredited appearances. Orgazmo is "Special Appearance", "Bikini Planet" (a non-notable softcore film which I will be nominating for AfD shortly, unless sources are found to support it) is 14th billing, the Big Lebowski" was unsupported and has been removed from the article, and finally "Homo Erectus" list her as Amazon Woman (uncredited). This debunking renders Subtropical Man's "per Sammy" vote null & void as well. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the article, you'll find she has many appearances in film and television, too many to bother listing here. It can be argued that uncredited appearances don't qualify, but even without those (The Big Lebowski and 8MM), she passes criterion 3 by a mile. I also don't know why you listed a couple pornographic titles that have no relevance here. That seems like a straw man. (Also, Bikini Planet is a parody of softcore movies, not a porno itself.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason that you continue to distort and misrepresent the subject's film roles, i.e. pumping them up beyond what they actually are? Do you think other editors here are too dumb or in too much of a hurry to go check for themselves? The handful of non-pornographic roles that this person has had are bit parts or uncredited appearances. When WP:PORNBIO criteria #3 states, "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", are you familiar with the definition of the word "featured"do you know what that means ? It does not mean 14th billing. It does not mean uncredited cameos. It means the the person was credited as part of the main cast, that she had a prominent role in the film. This person has never been the featured actress in a notable, non-porno film. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, please be aware that civility, while rare, is required. Your comments, here and elsewhere, are nearly always hostile or derogatory. As for the subject matter, you are discounting her many television appearances. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that you are misrepresenting sources is not an uncivil act; if you do not wish to be called out for making bad arguments, then it would behoove you to, y'know, stop making bad arguments. The subject's tv appearances consist of one softcore porn film and several bit parts in softcore porn shows. So please, show us the reliable sources that cover Ms. Lick for these roles. All ears. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only bit-part mainstream appearances. Tarc is right. Appeared in (uncredited, Naked woman 2, 14th billed, etc.) does not reach the "featured in" criterion in PORNBIO. Fails GNG without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Tarc's argument above. Finnegas (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PORNBIO3 is not satisfied by mere credits; "featured" indicates nontrivial roles are required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2015 (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.