Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Eternity

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 keep. --Core desat 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Eternity[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This minor porn actress does not fulfil any of the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), and as such falls foul of WP:BIO. Vizjim 09:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why are porn star bios always deleted? I think there are too many christian zealots tearing pages out of history on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator MacReady (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 December 2006

I voted Delete, and I'm not a "christian zealot" at all, and in fact welcome any kind of pornography related articles, and have worked on a few. But this pornstar simply doesn't pass the notability guidelines to be included, because she has done nothing notable. No awards, no shoots in well-known magazines and nothing noteworthy in her niche. Jayden54 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I nominated the article, and I'm an atheist. Vizjim 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO as she doesn't seem to have any awards, hasn't appeared in any well-known magazines and isn't particularly notable in her niche. Jayden54 10:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has appeared in several issues of Voluptuous, a major pornographic periodical over the past several years. --CJ Marsicano 14:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, the criteria call for a bit more than "has appeared in several issues". Specifically, "2) Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month), or similar titles in other major magazines." I note that Voluptuous magazine's entry is also being disputed, and nobody has produced evidence for its notability as yet. Vizjim 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has appeared in over 100 porn films, which does fall into WP:PORNBIO. Check her iafd profile. Don ^MEGĂ|60645 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Hey, who went and changed the criteria? >:^( Don~~^MEGĂ~~|~~60645~~ 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- Never mind, it's under Dubious methods of establishing notability. Don ^MEGĂ|60645 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actuually number of films if under 100 is there. Vegaswikian 23:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, check her afdb profile. She has done over 100 movies. Don ^MEGĂ|60645 19:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all criteria outlined by WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass WP:PORNBIO 12 years in the business is unique. Vegaswikian 23:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tonybuzan 13:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — Tonybuzan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep She's notable within her niche (busty black porn stars), so she fulfills criterion 6 of WP:PORNBIO. 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. She's well-known within her genre, satisfies WP:PORNBIO. Xihr 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please notable in the busty black niche and meets pornbio too erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than 100 movies, notable for having large real breasts. so she passes at least criterion 6 of PORNBIO. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:35, 4 December 2006 (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.