Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violet Blue (author)

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 - Rationale for delete is inadequate, overwhelming support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Violet Blue (author)

Violet Blue (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lets face it, this chick is really not notable at all. Flash in the pan, little better than an a myspace band. Delete, unless this chick can improve her lot in life sufficiently to warrant an encyclopedia article about her. Does this chick have an entry in Britannica? Brohans Dude (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator is a sock of banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs). Thatcher 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to mostly consist of various blogosphere events which, for the most part, have not made it into the mainstream press and are not reliably sourced (or sourceable). Per WP:BLP and WP:N I think deletion is a good idea. (I'd suggest the nom substitute "person" for "chick" - we shouldn't be denigrating people in noms, no matter of one's opinion on them.) Orderinchaos 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed why I think that the subject meets our notability policy in my 'keep' below, but I'm curious what part of WP:BLP do you think is a problem for this article? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly did make it into the mainstream press. Nick mallory (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Let's see. She's a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, an extremely notable paper. She's an award winning editor [1]. She was named one of the top 25 web celebs by Forbes [2] (which describes her as a "best-selling, award-winning author of over a dozen books on sex and sexuality"). Add to that the whole BoingBoing controversy [3], and the lawsuit against Noname Jane [4], which have received coverage and I think this is a pretty easy keep. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Nominator seems clueless. No need to vote. Potentially harassing nomination.Yeago (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It'd be speedy if Orderinchaos hadn't chimed in (with an entry that Chunky Rice pretty much eviscerated, but if anyone else supports a nom, speedy keep is off the table, the way I read it) Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for me. -- Quartermaster (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete... As nominator. Brohans Dude (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As the nom, it's already assumed you want the article deleted. No need to duplicate your !vote here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This isn't the Britannica. This is Wikipedia... Notable enough. Considering the kind of stuff we are keeping these days in Hindu saints section, She is by far a keeper ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (Pardon me: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!) Okay, so first off, good point, ChiragPatnaik. If you check out the wiki traf stats page [5] you will note she is popular! Some 6000 hits a month. Service provided. All the other nonsense about notability should be thrown aside in this instance because apparently she interests a lot of folk. Also, some of her pamphlets and instructional guides may, in fact, deserve articles of their own. Maybe they are groundbreaking in some of the methods they pass on? Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I was unsure about this one but, reading the article more closely, there's really nothing of substance here. The article does not meet BLP because there is really nothing about her here. After a brief mention of her writing career, the article becomes a coatrack for talking about the lawsuit and BoingBoing "controversy." For the points ChunkyRice brought up: 1) notability is not inherited, so being an employee of a notable company does not immediately make one notable; 2) doesn't qualify as a notable award in any capacity; 3) the BoingBoing flap is just blogosphere stuff, and does not establish wide notability for her; 4) out of all the cites in the article, the primary focus is on the lawsuit. While interesting, that's basically one event here, not enough to base the entire article around for notability. Overall, I don't find enough here to establish notability outside a very narrow interest, much less a WP:BLP compliant article. If the article is kept for some reason, it needs to be pared down dramatically to remove the coatracking and the non-notable books she's published. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that Forbes or the Chicago Tribune are reliable sources? Whatever you may think of "blogosphere stuff," it doesn't change the fact that it was covered by reliable sources. We determine notability based on what reliable sources cover, not what we think they should cover. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that Forbes and the Chicago Tribune were not a reliable sources. I said that the "award" is trivial, not something that would qualify as notable. She gets a brief mention in a "top 25" list, that's it. The Chicago Tribune article is about the controversy more than blue; it would be more appropriate for a mention in BoingBoing. Really, her notability in this article hangs on a WP:BLP1E violation: the lawsuit is the only real claim to notability here. I do note that I completely misstated my intent by writing down that Wired was the only non-adult entertainment source about the lawsuit, and have refactored that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being overly dismissive of the Forbes cite. While brief, it's clearly non-trivial per WP:WEB. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And you can't really call it a BLP1E article when it was created in 2005, long before the suit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Forbes mention, awards for writing/editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Author won a 2006 Independent Publisher Book Award. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• And if the Independent Publisher Book Award is notable enough for an article, I think winning it goes a long way toward conferring notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Too much wikidrama, not notable enough. Notability as a writer is not inherited from whom one writes. See also WP:BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While notability is certainly worth discussing, 'wikidrama' is not a good reason to delete any article. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, along with the number of articles from reliable sources visible from a gnews search(LA Times, SF Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, NY Times etc...) and her winning a Independent Publisher Book Award, I also found two Library Journal reviews. All of this certainly bring her to notability. Here are the reviews I found via my libraries EBSCO database:
  • Cornog, Martha. "The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How To Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle (Book)." Library Journal 128, no. 18 (November 2003): 110-110. Literary Reference Center, EBSCO,Abstract:Reviews the book "The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How To Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle," by Violet Blue.
  • Cornog, Martha. "The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Sex Toys." Library Journal 131, no. 15 (September 15, 2006): 77-77. Literary Reference Center, EBSCO,Abstract:The article reviews the book "The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Sex Toys," by Violet Blue.--Captain-tucker (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per her entry at http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/23/internet-fame-celebrity-tech-media-cx_de_06webceleb_0123land.html and all of her activities mentioned in the entry. And per Library Journal reviews. JohnRussell (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Clearly notable ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - any concerns about the the BoingBoing flap should be dealt with within the article, not by deleting the article. Artw (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - notable author and newspaper columnist. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep sources provided here indicate enough notability. Sources should be added to the article so her notability is made clear. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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.