Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe (actress)

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 delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. BLPs need good reliable sources per WP:BLP. The "keep" opinions mostly point to porn awards. These are at best indications of notability, and rather questionably so since the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. They cannot substitute for the BLP policy's requirements for good sourcing. While there are some sources cited here, we find policy-based arguments from the "delete" side about why in their view these sources are insufficient, but there are no rebuttals from the "keep" side. Sandstein 11:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe (actress)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is a single source that passes RS and it's by Martin Amis so I would accept that even though it's an interview and of dubious independence but everything else is utterly unacceptable to.meet the GNG. Unless extra sources appear this is a living bio that fails to meet notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's really difficult to find sources for someone with a common single name. Luckily these citations already in the article [1] [2] indicate that she passes the GNG. Further, her AVN multiple actress awards and hall of fame status is evidence towards WP:ANYBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

The second source literally says she likes fisting and did this in a scene. It's not enough and awards and halls of fame were explicitly rejected by the community as evidence of notability when pornbio was removed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and I may find the author's detail of the scene mundane and unimportant, but this dismissive reduction is not appropriate description of the coverage. He devotes paragraphs and paragraphs to her scene and her predilections to set up the rationale for the obscenity prosecution. Significant coverage is about how much a reliable source reports on a subject not about how important you think their coverage is or should be. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the presented sources are not anywhere near enough to show notability. It is time we start applying some expectation of reasonable levels of coverage, and that is clearly lacking here. Wikipedia is far too plauged with under sourced articles, we have no reason to keep this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some more sources related to Chloe and those paired with the ones already in the article that were mentioned above, her several major award wins (Best Actress, Performer of the Year and her AVN and XRCO Hall of Fame Inductions) makes her notable and that she meets GNG and ANYBIO as Morbidthoughts asserted above. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and the parts related to Chloe of The The Guardian linked in the article which is now behind a pay wall on it's official site part 1, part 2.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a book (The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How to Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle) that discusses Chloe and her films she directed, here on pages 87 and 183 plus a few other mentions elsewhere in it. It's an independently published book, but the publisher (Cleis Press) and the writer (Violet Blue) both seem to be notable.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:ENT. The above sources are passing mentions and/or WP:SPIP. For example, the Salon source is about the crackdown on extreme porn and not about Chloe, Village Voice does not qualify for notability, etc. Further, the statement that Further, her AVN multiple actress awards and hall of fame status is evidence towards WP:ANYBIO got to be a joke; PORNBIO was deprecated exactly because these various industry awards do not result in significant coverage towards BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently ignore WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." and WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" when it suits your argument. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment K.e. Coffman, Chloe was a pivotal part of that Salon piece, as she was one of the performers in the scene that caused the court case being discussed and was mentioned a fair amount in the article. Would you mind pointing me to where on here it says The Village Voice isn't a reliable source? I can't find anything that says it isn't. It may be an alternative newspaper, but it did have an editorial team and has even won journalism awards including ones for investigative reporting. In addition, the author (Tristan Taormino) is a noted writer and is notable enough to have her own wikipedia article. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:SIGCOV (aka WP:GNG), and WP:NPERSON. The multiple porn-industry awards do not confer Wikinotability on our subject; not since WP:PORNBIO was deprecated. As to the rest of the links submitted above to support a general notion of notability, they are worthless, either on their own or cumulatively: A write up about where the porn business was heading in 2001, in which our subject is used among many others as a source or "inside" information; an open discussion with porn fans organized in 2000 by the "Adult DVD Talk" website that hosts such discussions with every other female porn-performer; some interview by a blogger plus another piece by a blogger, hosted in 2001 on Salon, about "extreme porn" with interviews by some of its practitioners, such as our subject; a 2005 report on "AdultFYI" featuring Chloe on her "AEE experience" (flu & no voice); and that's it. The rest of the links are about porn awards. We cannot be supporting inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of such thin evidence. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some of the sources are reliable but there is need for more citation Georgiamarlins (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are indeed reliable but they're not about our subject, which is mentioned, at best, in passing. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to others saying there are insufficient detailed sources about this person, the article is a BLP and so the sourcing requirements are much higher. How encyclopedic and BLP-compliant is it to mention that a person lost their virginity under-age? This needs to go. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 27 December 2019 (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.