Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Manhart (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. If it was down to me, this one would hit "delete" straight away, but since there's clearly a disagreement about how BLP1E applies here, I'll have to close it this way. Feel free to DRV if you wish without contacting me. Black Kite (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Manhart[edit]

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

This is obviously a WP:BLP1E. I'm not sure at all how this got past AFD last time in 2007. All of the references point to the singular event that got her punished by the Air Force. Nothing else in the article makes her notable, therefore this article should be deleted. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I carefully read through Wikipedia's policy on individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E), and I don't think it applies to Michelle Manhart. WP:BLP1E states an individual should not have their own article if all three of the following are true: (1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; (2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article; (3) It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Based on IMDb, it seems that Ms. Manhart is now an actress, as well as a PETA spokeswoman, so criteria 1 and 2 are not true. Furthermore, there is no article which currently exists, or which I could imagine existing into which this article could be merged. Thus, I think we need to keep this page. NJ Wine (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a comment, but, IMDB isn't considered a reliable source per WP:IMDB. Sarah (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, WP:IMDB is from an essay WP:ELPEREN, and is not a Wikipedia policy. While I think that the WP:ELPEREN essay is valuable and well-written, I'm going to have to disagree with the exclusion of IMDB as a reliable source. IMDB contains a great deal of information about actors that just isn't contained elsewhere, and the vast majority of articles on actors cite IMDB. Furthermore, I question why Wikipedia has a template, Template:IMDb name, if IMDB is not reliable. NJ Wine (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry NJ Wine, but Wikipedia is not a news repository. Not a single one of her roles in the movies listed at IMDB could stand a chance at making her notable. There hasn't even been a news story on her since 2007. She's also not a PETA spokeswoman, she only did one ad with them and certain media outlets only covered it because it was directly after she had left the Air Force. I've read that policy thousands of times and enforced it as well; this article does not even come close to passing it. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to weigh in and say as to why IMDb isn't used as a reliable source to show notability: it's because it can be edited by the person in question. We've had cases in the past where entire pages were added to IMDb by the individual(s) involved, not to mention bits and pieces where individual users added trivia and whatnot to the IMDb entries. At the very, very most IMDb can be used as a trivial source to back up small things. While the page is considered to be an essay, it's pretty much accepted that IMDb is not a reliable source and is at best a trivial source due to its easily edited nature. I'm not saying that Manhart or anyone representing her has edited her page, just that in the past others have manipulated IMDb in the past to where it's not seen as a reliable source. We've got years of precedent backing up the whole "IMDb doesn't show notability" stuff. If the article is going to be kept, it's not going to be because of her IMDb account, so anyone interested in rescuing the article must find other sources that aren't primary (WP:PRIMARY), trivial, or IMDb.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She wasn't even the Playmate of the Month, and even most of those don't get their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, Michelle Manhart's notability is being evaluated under WP:BLP1E, not WP:PORNBIO. She is notable because of the media reaction surrounding the military's dismissal of her, not because she was such a renowned porn star. NJ Wine (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually NJ, there is no clause in AFD policy preventing the article from being reviewed against multiple Wikipedia policies. Your statement here though kind of proves my point as to why this is a BLP1E. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a person can be evaluated under multiple notability guidelines, but they are only required to pass one of them to be considered notable. I was simply trying to make a point that just because Michelle Manhart was not Playmate of the Month, and doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO notability, does not make her non-notable. NJ Wine (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NJ Wine. Hektor (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The initial events were covered internationally, raising Manhart to a high profile and subsequently, e.g. with the PETA advertisement, so BLP1E does not apply (specifically, condition 2 is not met). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E, including, yes, the second criterion, as the one event is still the only thing she is known for, and. Now whether or not the scandal itself is worthy of an article might be an interesting topic to ponder, but she fails WP:BLP1E. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's have another look at this. I guess it comes down to whether the PETA ad was purely subsidiary to the initial event, or whether it took on a life of its own. It seems not to have been followed up by anything much, and it was close in time to the initial fuss, so it's reasonable to treat it as subsidiary. So BLP1E(2) does apply, and I'm changing my vote to Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Manhart definitely met the notability criteria and her case is still a part of the military subculture. For instance, I saw her referenced in a news story just yesterday, about a controversy involving military women breastfeeding in public..."People are comparing breastfeeding in uniform to urinating and defecating in uniform. They're comparing it to the woman who posed in "Playboy" in uniform [in 2007]" Scott told Yahoo! in an interview. "We never expected it to be like this."[1] - Kelly ^hi! 17:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the phrase "the woman who" implies she's not known under her name any more. Is there not another article she would sensibly merge to? Whatever the outcome of this AfD, would a mention in Women in warfare and the military (2000–present) be appropriate - at the moment that article is all "first woman to do this" and "first woman to do that". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and not sufficiently notable. Off-topic thought: isn't there some sort of porn-pedia? What's the transfer protocol? ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I don't have any problem with WP:BLP1E, either, but for different reasons. She does not remain a low-profile individual, in the sense that she set a precident in the US Military: Don't pose nude. Also, she did go on to pose nude in a notable ad campaign. Those two points are enough for me. Keep for now. Roodog2k (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per previous nomination which ended in an overwhelming decision to keep. This "event" garnered international attention. The reason because the two earlier similar military cases haven't gotten an article is because they didn't get this amount of attention and sources and still date from a time when the internet coverage was minimal and information scarce. If one deletes this one, than you should also delete the articles about police officers Carol Shaya Castro and Barbara Schantz. – fdewaele, 5 June 2012.
No AfD discussion needed A WP:BLP1E argument is never an argument for deletion, it is an argument for merger. And having done a WP:BIO1E merge recently at Thomas Mantell, the benefits of a BIO merger are not clear cut. No admin tools are needed here. Also, WP:BLP1E states, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals", yet no argument has been made that this is a "low-profile individual", rather the contrary. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The event may be notable, the person isn't per WP:BLP1E (Ms. Manhart was low-profile and has returned to low-profile status since the timeframe for the event). I recommend the article be renamed and rewritten to be about the event per WP:Notability (events), then it can be considered under the correct notability guidelines. --Joshuaism (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2012 (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.