- Phoenix Marie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article was deleted despite what appears to me to be an unambiguous consensus to keep it. It was relisted twice due to lack of consensus, after which four editors voted keep. Believing the result was clear, I participated minimally in the discussion, merely endorsing another editor's position. After it was deleted, I addressed my concerns to the closing admin, Drmies, who suggested that I appeal the decision here. He explained that he found the "keep" arguments flimsy, but as only one editor voted "delete" and the comments of the six "keep" voters included what I perceive to be legitimate arguments which were dismissed without explanation, it's my feeling that his decision amounted to overriding the discussion rather than interpreting it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An understandable concern. I hear "flimsy keep arguments", and am familiar with a porn-inclusionist group who argue hard to keep the broadly discredited guideline WP:PORNBIO from realistically providing guidance as to what makes a pornstar Wikipedia-notable. In short, it is whether independent others have published secondary-source commentary on the subject. Mere nominations, even awards, reported without commentary, don't support encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a directory of pornstars and their statistics. There are other online, contributer-welcoming outlets for documenting pornstars. Wikipedia is particularly sensitive about this subject, not because it is unpalatable or anything like that, but because the sources are promotional.
- Could someone please temp-undelete the article so that this case may be reviewed specifically. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say "flimsy keep arguments", those are not my words--but it captures something of the spirit, yes. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. There wasn't ever anything on Talk: besides wikiproject templates. —Cryptic 08:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion based on policy. And the article does not in any way prove any notability, as clearly stated in the delete !vote and by the closer. Thomas.W talk 08:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Had I seen this, I would have voted delete. We weigh votes and arguments against policy rather then count them and a keep argument that has been discredited has less value then policy based delete arguments. Sources win articles not uncredible assertions pulled out of thin air. Good close. Spartaz Humbug! 08:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore I vote to restore the article. I understand that there is a policy regarding "notability" however, I believe there is more to a Wikipedia article than whether or not it meets specific rules. Phoenix Marie is a very popular performer within this industry. She is very well-known to those that enjoy this medium, to the point where she is recognizable outside of the industry. But what I would consider the value to keeping the article on Wikipedia is whether or not she is worthy of being remembered in future generations - to which I vote yes. Hobbamock (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse this is a clear example of AfD not being a vote. WP:PORNBIO is clear in its application and the keeps were looking for an exception (nominations vs. wins). The Big Bad Wolfowitz made an argument for deletion based on our inclusion guidelines, this was only refuted by claims that the article should be included despite not meeting said guidelines.--kelapstick(bainuu) 12:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore per arguments presented in AfD by keep voters. Keep voters used WP:COMMONSENSE and suggested we WP:Ignore all rules. It is ridiculous to disregard Phoenix Marie's many accomplishments throughout her career just because she didn't win an award. As several AfD participants said, Phoenix Marie is one of porn's most well-known stars. She is notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- She may be notable among porn fans, and in the porn business, but she's clearly not notable by Wikipedia's standards. And there's no such thing as "ignore all rules" when it comes to notability, if there was Wikipedia would be turned into a resumé site like LinkedIn and similar. Thomas.W talk 15:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This just proves that WP's notability guidelines are too strict. You just admitted that she's notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't. I explicitly wrote that she is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, which is what matters here. And why should we make an exception for Phoenix Marie when we don't make exceptions for professors, businessleaders, stars/starlets in mainstream movies and television, singers etc.? Thomas.W talk 15:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have articles for all of those--except professors, haha. Also, you can't really invoke IAR if you argue for "regular" notability based on awards and coverage etc. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Non-notable adult "actress", as noted by the votes in that AfD that actually matter; minor award + simple nominations no not add up to notability. "Keep per IAR", coming from one of the perennial porn POV-pushing editors in the project, carries zero weight whatsoever. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have !voted delete too if I still hung around AFD, and I think this was ultimately the correct outcome, but I'm really not comfortable with this discussion. It's not unreasonable at all to pass by a deletion debate that looks like it's strongly tending the way you want, especially if it's unanimously so after a relist—and that's essentially what the DRV nom did. So, @Sammy1339: what would you have written instead of just "Keep per Rebecca1990" if you'd instead been facing down a wall of 5:2 deletes? I haven't seen you around DRV before, so be aware we normally put a much higher emphasis on the WP:GNG than subject-specific notability guidelines, and WP:PORNBIO in particular is poorly regarded; in-depth reliable sources are far and away the best way to convince us. —Cryptic 17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cryptic: I could say a lot about this hypothetical, but I don't think it's relevant to the present discussion. I'm bothered that most of the editors voting here, including Thomas.W, Spartaz, Hobbamock, and Rebecca1990, seem to be talking about whether the article should have been deleted. As I understand, however, this discussion is supposed to be about whether a consensus existed to delete the article. While I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor should it be, I find the following quote from WP:Closing discussions relevant:
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. ... The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.
Among the arguments presented were ones based on WP:GNG and item #3 of WP:PORNBIO, and sources were provided in support of them. It's possible to contest the merit of these arguments, but they are not "irrelevant" in the sense of the above quotation. There was also an argument based on WP:IAR, and though I can understand the motivation to dismiss as a fanatic the editor who invoked this nuclear option, I view her passionate statements as the rational response of a person who has invested considerable time and effort into work which may be suddenly lost. Of course we cannot base decisions on traffic statistics, but the fact that this well-written and well-sourced article was read by nearly 1000 people per day is evidence that there is something wrong with the standards we use to judge such articles, and cause for concern that thoughtless and mechanical application of these standards can seriously interfere with the ability of editors who work in this area to usefully contribute. I can also understand the tendency to trivialize the subject matter as lacking long-term educational significance. I feel this way about the innumerable articles about actors, musicians, and television show episodes as well, and in fact I'm personally indifferent to the question of whether Phoenix Marie has a page on Wikipedia. That is not why I made this appeal. Rather, I am concerned about the chilling effects on editors who may not want to contribute to articles that might be deleted at any time. These editors need to know, at the very least, that admins will not act autocratically. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My entire comment after the first sentence related to the AFD close. Essentially this BLP was badly sourced and Drmies correctly applied the prevailing requirement for BLPs to be properly sourced against really pathetic non-policy based IAR type bollocks arguments. You lost because you had no sources. Stop processwanking and go find the sources if you want this back. Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And my entire comment in this review was related to the AfD, stating that the delete !vote in the AfD and the closing statement there were all about policy (while nothing else was; bringing up IAR in an AfD is really pathetic...). Which is what AfD is about. So stop misrepresenting the comments made by others. Thomas.W talk 07:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse this debate had people accurately citing notability guidelines on one hand and appeals to WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE, hit counts and arguments that the notability criteria should be rewritten on the other. There's only one way a debate like that can be closed. The closing admin didn't dismiss the comments without explanation, they wrote a closing rationale. Although PORNBIO is widely disregarded as a suitable standard the argument in the AfD was that the subject didn't even meet that minimal standard. Hut 8.5 19:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd invite my DRV colleagues to re-read PORNBIO. It was widely-disregarded. There was a time when it was an utterly defective SNG and we refused to enforce it. Since then it's been rewritten, and it's improved quite a bit. I think it should now be treated with a little more respect. However, I don't take any issue with this particular close because there was a good case made that the subject didn't meet PORNBIO.—S Marshall T/C 09:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist It's hard to argue that 1-2 votes = consensus, unless you also count the closing admin; but the closing admin isn't supposed to have an opinion or feeling. I do agree that the keep votes are weak, but in this case we don't have enough participation to judge consensus either way. At worst, this should have been relisted to generate additional comment. --Jayron32 05:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, IAR to my mind shouldn't apply to contentious situations. The "Keep" arguments were pretty feeble, and the "Delete" ones were more rooted in policy; the closer made a good decision. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse. I suspect that had Drmies instead made a firm and compelling delete !vote, it would have strengthened the hand of the next admin to come along and close as delete, and might have even avoided this DRV. Nevertheless, it is clear from a combination of this AfD and this DRV that (a) the outcome was objectively correct, and (b) the consensus (including that of DRV participants) is that deletion is appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think consensus is determined by adding AfD !votes to DRV !votes. If you add 18 to the keeps for the 18 other Wikipedias who include this topic, you will get yet a different result. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point about posting a !vote, but if an admin felt that a Penthouse Pet is not wp:notable on Wikipedia, I would think the first thing that would come to mind is to consider a !vote of Merge to a list of Penthouse Pets. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep or let another admin close I wish there was more time to prepare this, but the seven days is just about up. I found 5 sources on Proquest, 2 in Australia, 1 from Mexico in Spanish, and one in the Los Angeles Times. I'm not saying here that these sources combined satisfy WP:GNG, but four of them contribute to WP:GNG, including a picture and caption in the Los Angeles Times. Note that the requirement in WP:N to source an article was removed in early 2008. This topic was a Penthouse Pet, and imdb reports appearances in over 200 films. The topic has two stage names and was born in Arizona. Few people would dispute that porn stars significantly attract the attention of the world at large over a period of time. I found that 18 other Wikipedia's have this topic, and this should have been mentioned in both the nomination and the closing. Also, commons has a couple of dozen media on file. If the community objects to pornographic topics, this should be a provision of WP:NOT, but since such does not exist, WP:N and WP:V apply. The nomination makes no attempt to provide evidence that the topic fails WP:GNG, just a personal opinion. There is a book using WP:BEFORE on the first page that the nomination doesn't mention, so the nomination !vote must be discounted, and with only one supporting !vote this is inside the WP:NOQUORUM bounds which say that one to two editors do not create an AfD consensus. So even if we allow the closing admin to find a delete consensus, this must be a soft delete. Even if the nomination is allowed to claim non-notableness, what happened to the policy WP:ATD in this nomination and in this AfD? Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you got your bolding wrong there. You have a relatively lax interpretation of the GNG but accept that this article does not meet it. Ergo for the BLP this means that the outcome has to be to remove the unsourced material and delete the article. Its got nothing to do with liking of hating porn and for once it would lovely to have a discussion about a porn related BLP where the keeping side don't try to tar the deleteing side with anti-porn arguments - like that's a mark of shame or something else I have never got. Honestly, this is the bizarrest argument I have seen for a long time even before we get round to examining the contention that we should discard the AFD nomination because the nominator is required to prove that the article does not meet GNG when the onus has always been on those who want to keep an argument to show that the sources exist. Spartaz Humbug! 05:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply having one's picture in the paper is not an establisher of notability. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per the accurate and generally consistent analyses of the endorse !votes above. The fact that some other-language wikis have laxer standards is no basis for discounting our well-supported by consensus, more rigorous, practices. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
