Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Marie Ballowe Dawson-White

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Marie Ballowe Dawson-White[edit]

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

Well sourced, but ultimately notable for only one event, appearing on an MTV special, and even then not very notable in that itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Never heard of her. Not notable person. --Manway (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, not having heard of her is not really a suitable argument for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Schmidt. You're absolutely right. That is not a good criteria. I took the liberty of Googling "Anne Marie Ballowe" (without the quotes) and the first page results are as follows:

mylife.com imdb.com facebook.com latimes.com (photo only) myspace.com askville.amazon.com wikipedia.org 123people.com whosdatedwho.com

I thought it might have been a fluke. SO I went to the second page:

wikipedia.org ebay.com ebay.com blogs.salon.com mcomet.com mylovelykia.blogspot.com kosmix.com wapedia.mobi wikipedia.org evri.com

Don't see anything reliable there. But I learned a lot about pornographic actresses. --Manway (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than you wanted too, quite likely. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Close forthwith. Whether -you- haven't heard of her isn't a jot of difference. It's whether her WP:NOTABLEness is established from WP:RS, and it is everywhere from the LA Times to Shelley Lubben's Pink Cross Foundation to AVN to MTV to Luke Ford to IAFD and on and on. Is it not notable for someone to be assjammed 50 times in a row by a lineup of guys in succession and to be at the centre of an HIV scare that chilled the entire US porn "industry"? Grace Quek and Jasmine St Clair suckfucked their way to high notability in similar fashion. Add to the previous her -196- credited appearances in commercial film and video including one release where her name stars in the title. Because there's CLEARLY MULTIPLE and RELIABLE sources for the notability as is also patently evident from googlesearch of either her current or performing name then this should be closed forthwith as illconsidered WP:SNOWBALL not worth the distraction to further consider. So I'll call for admin ruling on that at this juncture already.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes you'll also notice she's already accepted in 6 foreign language versions of wikipedia as sufficiently notable. So where her entire body of work, her language of education/discourse and the official language of her primary nationality is English, it begs a rather bizarre question to propose that en-Wikipedia's the only one of the seven languages in which she can't meet the notability test.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that she was accepted by other languages is not indicative of anything. For all I know, the articles there are just deserving of deletion. Second this plays into a longstanding problem in deletion discussions, I'll sum it up below:

Sources must demonstrate the notability of the subjects they cover. The simple presence of sources has no bearing on notability.

This is something that lots of people miss. For example, the LA Times article mentioned this person in passing, the focus of the article was on the industry. That's not a good source. Then there are facebook and youtube, those are never good sources. A few porn blog or two that have no editorial review, again, not sources. The simple fact here is that the sources that exist suck, and there are no replacements. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #2 did not mention her in passing. The LA Times conducted an audio interview with her to go along with their 'See No Evil' story.--TQ (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP1E does not apply to actors, no matter their genre, as acting in multiple projects is what actors do. To determine notability, we instead look to coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Part of the problem with trying to establish if this person is notable is that the article had been moved - arguably the subject is much better known under her pseudonym of Brooke Ashley. But as it stands, she is notable for one event: being a porn star who was infected on the job. Is that enough for her to warrant an article? I dunno... and the reliance of the Wikipedia article to a article written by Shelley Lubben (who has an axe to grind against the porn biz - for instance, she's been throwing statistics regarding infection which were proven to be false) doesn't sit well with me. Ultimately it comes down to WP:BLP1E... and as the article stands she's not notable. Tabercil (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her notoriety is not "one event" & is bigger and broader than what you state. It's that of:

A porn actress infected on the job making her a newsworthy person in the adult and broader press at the time of the '98 HIV outbreak pinned on Mark Wallice. She really should be at least as notable as him, considering all that may be asserted regarding either of them. His career was longer and he was a director which she was not, but he disappeared from sight in a way that she declined to
Someone who has joined forces with the notable Shelley Lubben and Pink Cross Foundation, insofar as telling her story through them. It does add just a little notability when someone comes out in public and effectively rolls over on their former lifestyle, associates, ideology, perspectives, etc. Michelle Avanti, Nadia Styles and Linda Lovelace did similar.
A former porn actress who has publicised her own religious conversion. A la Linda Lovelace and Ms Lubben and a little similar to Larry Flynt.
A person with a key featuring role in an MTV documentary of note.
Seven years as a credited performer in adult film, including at least one release titled after her performance name (Violation of Brooke Ashley). 7 years and close to 200 releases really is veteranhood and longevity as far as porn careers go.
The owner of notoriety for a world first sex act ie. being the 1 in a 50-on-1 anal gangbang. Re this also the filming of it achieves special notoriety in adult film and for her as the star and title performer. The seminal character of her contribution to that cinematic subgenre is further enforced by the rather unique circumstances of her later comeback as an acknowledged HIV+ hardcore performer in a commercial release garnering more-than-usual publicity heat.
The legal notability of her successful case for workers compensation. This may have ramifications in the future for health and safety measures in that line of work and for the perception of the relationship between the workers and the commissioners of their work (ie. they are employees, not 'independent contractors'). The case was at least an appeal and probably one at a high level because of the length of time until it finally resolved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.119.107 (talk • contribs) 02:50, December 7, 2010

Well... as porn is such a controversial field, perhaps best to simply consider her as a prolific actress who happens to be in the porn genre. Ignoring her long career and concentrating on one event in that career, is akin to ignoring Rock Hudson's long career in film and claiming his own contracted illness as a one event. Of course, that stretches a bit, as Rock was mianstream and had mainstream coverage. What kind of coverage did/does this person have in sources considered reliable for her genre? And ignoring the genre, does she have enough coverage meet the WP:GNG? And if so, is the coverage to be ignored because it is pertinant only to that genre? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 22:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe she's notable in the same sense that Tricia Devereaux, Lara Roxx, and Darren James are notable. She passes the GNG from the book hits under Brooke Ashley. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Morbidthoughts comments, the book hits do it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:15, 13 December 2010 (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.