Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Mack

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Mack

[edit]
Christy Mack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a biography of a living person created after 2010. Article's subject is a pornographic actress who does not meet standards for Wikipedia:Notability. Primary sources for article are problematic by standards of Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Half of cited sources are from Xbiz, a trade magazine for webmasters hosting pornagraphy. Other sources include the "Internet Adult Film Database", "guysgabafterdark.com". However, article contains two links to the reputable source AVN which I believe disqualifies the article from the deletion procedure stipulated by Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. My primary contention is that Wikipedia is not an online listing for sex workers. While Wikipedia should include references to sex workers who are socially relevant, who have had a large impact on their culture or society, or sex workers who have been part of productions that meet the requirements above, Ms. Mack meets none of these criteria and as such the article is to be viewed must accurately as the inclusion of indiscriminate information as clarified in WP:DISCRIMINATE. While one citation included in the article would seem to point to Ms Mack having a notability outside of pornagraphic producers, namely the Vice Magazine article "Hanging Out With Pornstar Christy Mack Made Me Less Scared of Porn", upon reading the piece the article was less an article based solely as an personal interest interview with Ms Mack based on her notability and more a piece based on the author's views of pornagraphy in which Mack is used as a foil to the author's views. In other words, Mack was used in the piece to fill the role of 'pornagraphic actress' and was not based on specific interest in Mack. Jaydubya93 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with a host of awards.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she won some awards and so her legacy will follow her the rest of her life. 76.4.134.147 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Changed to delete because I found out there is an editor who is a promoter for the agency who represents these girls. 76.4.134.147 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — 76.4.134.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - seems like she just won Best New Starlet at the XBIZ Awards tonight. I'll wait for confirmation tomorrow. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO (XBIZ Award or not) and is very likely to pass WP:GNG. Cavarrone 07:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator's detailed assessment and the consensus established after a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiera King "that necessary detailed secondary reliable sources required by WP:BLP.... trumps a guideline like WP:PORNBIO". Finnegas (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with her Venus, AVN, and XBIZ awards. Also passes WP:ENTERTAINER by winning "Miss FreeOnes", "FreeOnes Best Newcomer", and AVN's fan award for "Most Promising New Starlet" because those were all fan voted awards and one of the ENTERTAINER criteria states "Has a large fan base or a significant cult following", and she clearly does. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for admin consideration whoever closes this afd. Keep this in mind, 76.4.134.147 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, what do we have here? A WP:WIKIHOUNDING IP? It's really frustrating how me and other editors are often accused of being publicists just because we mostly edit porn articles. If it was some other topic on WP I'm sure no one would say anything. And just for the record, I am not a publicist and I do not have a conflict of interest, in fact, I sort of dislike Christy Mack because I think she is an extremely overrated porn star. But unlike most users on here, I am able to participate in discussions without voting "delete because WP:I just don't like it". I am also able to edit articles with a WP:Neutral point of view. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Rebecca", stop casting aspersions, without any evidence, against editors who disagree with you in deletion discussions. Referring to comments made by established editors is not WIKIHOUNDING -- although your repeated aspersions approach that sort of misconduct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, to imply that a user who focuses on one (large) area has an hidden agenda is just inane and baseless. Nor do I understand what it has to do with the subject at hand, namely Christy Mack. Can you explain? Nymf (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • First of all, I'm not the one who's suggested that "Rebecca" is a publicist here, but it's a suggestion that's been made repeatedly by multiple established editors, and that "Rebecca" until today refused to address. Given their long history of adding promotionally sourced and otherwise unreliably sourced content to BLPs, and, worse, tendentiously denying the existence of obvious sourcing issues while casting aspersions (see, for example, this AFD, where they argued at some length that an item labeled "PRESS RELEASE" was not in fact a press release), it's frankly ridiculous to call the suspicion of COI "absurd and baseless". Second, the issue I raised is "Rebecca's" habit of accusing other editors, wholly without evidence of misbehavior like "WIKIHOUNDING". That's completely indefensible, especially since they wield it as a tactic only to attempt to discourage people who disagree with them from participating in deletion discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I mostly agree with Rebecca1990. I don't think the AVN fan vote win is relevant because fans could get five votes per day, which I think blows its credibility and to my mind, Miss FreeOnes is not significant. But the Venus award is Europe's most signifiant award and XBIZ is one of the big three American awards (AVN and XRCO being the others) and those two alone are notable enough to warrant retaining the article regardless of the fan vote awards. So with her XBIZ win last week, I vote "keep." I agree with 76.4.134.147 in that there are too many promoters hanging out here (and not just in articles about this industry!), but an article on this person is acceptable. Looks to me that the "necessary detailed secondary reliable sources required" are fine now, too. pumik9 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per pumik9. Nymf (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This AfD was initiated by a very new Wikipedia user that apparently (based on several ongoing discussions in other locations) doesn't know a whole lot of about Wikipedia's notability guidelines, like PORNBIO. There's nothing wrong with using citations from well-established trade magazines in a Wikipedia article. As for the "one citation included in the article (that) would seem to point to Ms Mack having a notability outside of pornagraphic producers, namely the Vice Magazine article 'Hanging Out With Pornstar Christy Mack Made Me Less Scared of Porn'", that citation is merely used (in the article under discussion here) to confirm a few pieces of relatively minor biographical infomation. Which Wikipedia users have or have not edited the article under discussion here is completely irrelevant to this discussion, period.
As for the Kiera King AfD, that unfortunate incident occurred while the PORNBIO inclusion standard was still disputed, and it was merely initiated to try & prove the point that all award nominations should be removed from the PORNBIO standard...as was discussed at length both within that same AfD discussion and here.
The bottom-line is that the subject here has "won well-known and significant industry awards"...including a Venus Award for "Best Actress International" & an XBIZ Award for "Best New Starlet". Guy1890 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2014 (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/Christy_Mack&oldid=1068885181"