Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malice (model)

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malice (model)

Was tagged as speedy but I don't think that's appropriate. Bringing it here~~, no vote~~. Cyde Weys 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Malice has her own website, but has no notable credits outside of that. Article was written by a person close to her. Ckessler

Delete nn, vanity, self-promotion. Fan1967 20:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:BIO. PJM 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to her broad presence on MySpace, LiveJournal, and her own website Malice has been involved in a controversy about her existence as "Faarwolf" in the video game development world & numerous game fan sites have posted long articles pro & con about her relating to this issue. She's also been cited on a few national sites, including Susie Bright's, for her recent material on hepres. The article needs to be expanded to reflect attention given to her outside the material posted by those who created the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.20.103 (talk • contribs)
- Having a MySpace and LiveJournal account do not make one notable. --Cyde Weys 05:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the broad number of links to her blogs from other sites across multiple platforms of interest, not simply her having them. It's been enough to earn her mentions in other wikis.

keep no inherent problems with the article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does need some cleanup & removal of POV by someone less involved than the creator of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.20.103 (talk • contribs)

Delete self-promotion. Moe Aboulkheir 04:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not self-promotion as was not done by the model herself. Recent changes show notable controversy. The Watchman
Delete, non-notable. No idea what this "Faarwolf" business is about but it's still entirely non-notable. If I get into a big spat with one of my friends that's a big deal for us but that doesn't make it encyclopedic content notable across the globe. --Cyde Weys 05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Faarwolf business is noteable, it set off broad controversy across the online gaming world. If you Google Malice Faarwolf you get several hundred hits to pages in at least 3 countries with her identity being "unmasked" and its ramifications to the gaming world. Faarwold as a single search term returns well over 1000 hits.

Hate to break it to, but the online gaming world is itself pretty non-notable. Just because it's numerous doesn't make it notable. If she had set off a broad controversy in (say) the high-energy-particle-physics world, or the Shakespearean-scholar world, or the nanotech-engineering world, or whatever, then I'd feel differently about her. Herostratus 15:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -changed my mind. --Phil 11:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this article, as long as it is written NPOV. She does seem to have a large internet following. --Brand Eks 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)brandeks[reply]
Delete -
Weak delete, I don't really see any notability here. Stifle 00:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --MaNeMeBasat 07:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, vanity and self promotion. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity and self promotion Scranchuse 14:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If proven self-prom, delete, otherwise, based on its content, this appears wiki-worthy IMHO therefore keep -- Simon Cursitor 16:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable webcam sexpot. Brian G. Crawford 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, she's not that. She's got some exposure as a fetish and gothic model with an amount of magazine and catalog work, but insufficient to keep the article in my opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Brian G. Crawford Golfcam 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's under the bar, IMO. I've heard of her, known of her a long time, I have friends who know her, but really it's not enough for an encyclopedia article, I don't think. And the Everquest stuff is just lame - buncha geeks getting all worked up about finding that an ex Sony Online Entertainment employee / forum moderator who quit had a goth soft-porn sideline. She's a somewhat well-known fetish and gothic magazine/catalog model, but I don't feel it's enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, likely vanity, promotional. There's nothing to warrant inclusion in an encylopedia here. WP:NOT for web models who moderate RPG forums. To those who would keep, ever heard of systemic bias? Just because WP is on the web does not make web-related stuff more suitable, indeed we should subject it to even more intense scrutiny to ensure quality. Deizio 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Focoe 08:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite nn. Andrew Levine 20:31, 18 March 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.