Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Jones

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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Jones

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

Apart from accusing Charlie Sheen of paying for sex with her, this person is entirely non-notable. Even if we consider that event to be worthy of note on itself, this still feels ONEEVENTlike. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - her career, drug abuse, and death were also well covered. [1][2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Some coverage but my sweeps of major media did not find much; sources in article currently somewhat marginal.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep as per others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Sources are by no means perfect but notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is both divided and shallow. Courcelles (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the greatest example of a notable person, but "significant" coverage in reliable sources is always subjective, so I don't see how the article can be deleted. The coverage in the newspaper The Age is huge, as pointed above [3]. Also, after her death, she was the subject of an episode of a TV show called A Current Affair entitled "The sudden death of adult film star Chloe Jones" [4] confirmed by UPI [5]. In fact, that UPI source might be useful for the article. Plus the articles purely related to the Charlie Sheen scandal. Dontreader (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely non-notable, this is an encyclopedia not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide. MachoCarioca (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If she's "entirely non-notable" then why was she featured in the newspaper The Age and on an episode of A Current Affair? Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide but the subject seems to pass WP:GNG. I quote:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

And keep in mind that many articles that were written about her in reliable sources are now surely dead links. I found several cases while doing the AfD research. Dontreader (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Given the thoroughly whitewashed, deliberately misleading caliber of the AVN story, it's hard to say Jones was "well-covered" by industry sources. And that's reflected in the article, which attributes her death to "liver failure[3] caused by Vicodin use", although the cited source actually says "liver failure inflicted by an addiction to Vicodin and a lifetime of heavy drug and alcohol abuse". An accurate bio would be horrific and serve to do little beyond inflict pain on her family and her children. The sanitized piece of shit that we've let masquerade as her biography is worse than nothing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dontreader's rationale. Nymf (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found and the deletion rationales "The sanitized piece of shit" and "encyclopedia not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide" are hardly guidelines and which portray a hint of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are hardly convincing. GuzzyG (talk) 03:13, 24 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.