Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Noir

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Noir[edit]

When scanning the newly created articles, I saw this sharp-looking article, but something didn't seem right. I polled a few opinions at the reference desk/miscellaneous and it appears there's consensus that it's nn. I initially stamped it with a Prod (reason: appears to be a non-notable porn starlet, article sure looks pretty though); however a "mysterious" anon user went in and removed the prod tag here. Needless to say, this appears to be a vanity page (or possibly even an attack page) but it boils down to one simple thing: Non-Notablity. If an article looks sharp, it doesn't get a free pass. Bobak 16:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. --Dakart 16:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN and vanity, no verification of claims or notability. The creator of the article admits to being her husband in the comment on the image creation. There's a bar for adult performers to reach, and I can't see that this gal approaches it. So she's a groupie at industry cons who lets the horny fanboys grope her, but that doesn't confer notability. Ravenswing 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Are we sure this is vanity? Why don't we ask people who are involved with this article to provide verifiable links that show that this is not just self promotion? I have a big problem with prodding articles without posting other requests for article change first. What about placing Template:Cleanup-spam, Template:Citations_missing, or some other notification that there might be a problem before jumping to a prod. And when it comes to notability, it is subjective and purely POV. I've never heard of her. However, maybe she has a large fan base. I notice there is absolutely nothing on this articles talk page. Why not start discussions there, post a warning that there may be issues, prod if nothing is done, then go to AfD. DanielZimmerman 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it isn't a vanity page, is she notable enough to have a page?--Dakart 18:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Appears to falls well short of WP:BIO, but I agree with DanielZimmerman... contacting the originator and posting on their talk page or the article talk page before PROD or AfD would have been a preferable course of action. ~~No evidence this is WP:VAIN~~ and if the contention is that this is an attack page that should be supported by links, etc. No opinion on deletion/retention at this time.--Isotope23 16:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Err, gentlefolk, kindly read my above comment. If you follow the contribution history for the editor who created this, you get the following: "Image:ChristinaNoir.jpg (Source of File: I made this file (I'm her husband)." Already asked and answered. Ravenswing 18:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -That's a good point, Ravenswing, I had indeed noticed that when I first saw the article, but I should have mentioned it. -- Bobak 18:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geez, you expect me to read your comments Ravenswing? Point taken... Still, an effort should have been made to contact the article creator.--Isotope23 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to appear on either IAFD or IMDB. In other words, she's a woman with a website. Even by the rather murky standards for porn stars, she isn't one. Fan1967 16:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Yanksox 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Next. PJM 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has all the hallmarks of a vanity posting, and no verification of notability. I see no policy consideration or common sense bases for thinking this article invited any extra effort by nominator to inform prior to prodding or afd. Note: 80 and change unique google hits. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herein lies is the problem... everyone thinks it is "extra effort by nominator to inform prior to prodding or afd" when it is a courtesy that should be done on every AfD that isn't a Speedy of blatent vandalism (and it takes all of 3-5 minutes to post something on the article talk page or creator talk page). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD doesn't mandate it, but it does suggest it. The "Common Sense basis" is that it avoids biting new users who may not be aware of guidelines like WP:BIO & WP:VAIN.--Isotope23 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty broad brush. I wrote that nothing in this article... which quickly became "everyone thinks." The implication of that language was that other articles may be appropriate for pre-notice while this one is not. I approach awarding for deletion on a case-by-case basis. As for biting, you're suggesting that the act of nominating an article for deletion is itself a form of biting in the absence of pre-notice and always shows a lack of courtesy. We'll just have to disagree on that score. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the implication is that every article brought to AfD/PROD should start with a good faith attempt to contact the creator (or in the case of articles with a large number of editors, comment on the Talk page) and this article is no exception. This should not be seen as extra effort; this should be seen a common courtesy and an extention of WP:AGF. You are correct; I am of the opinion that AfD/PROD of an article that has existed for less than 1 day and was created by an editor who has been around for 2 days without an attempt to contact him/her and explain the issues with the article does show a distinct lack of courtesy and runs counter to the spirit of WP:BITE (unless of course the article is an obvious and blatent case of vandalism/hoax). You are free to disagree with me onthat count though.--Isotope23 13:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - For me this does not read like a vanity page, but your milage may vary. Also, when I Google her name I turned up about 800 references many of which appear unconnected to her site, so while she appears to be a lesser known porn actress, I'm not sure she qualifies as not-notable. I agree about placing Template:Cleanup-spam, Template:Citations_missing to address community concerns before deletion. PetePrkr 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

CommentTry doing a search for a few of the names at Category:American porn stars. The first name there, Paizley Adams, whose article is barely a stub, draws almost 80,000 GHits. The second name, Sunrise Adams, draws over a million. For porn, which involves huge number of sites promoting each other and linkspam distributed all over the place, 800 is a very low number. Fan1967 20:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough - I searched on Brutus Black and found about 17,000, and then Googled "Rose Agree" who has an entry and found only about 600, so I'm not sure what to say - not nearly a million either, but also not 800. So, while your point is well taken, but I'm still on the fence about deleting out of hand before placing Template:Citations_missing. PetePrkr 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Might not be the best example. I was about to suggest that maybe Rose Agree doesn't belong either, but then I looked at her article. If you look it, you'll see that her work would appeal to somewhat, uh, specialized tastes, with a rather limited viwership. Fan1967 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um... yeah, I'd agree with that - I'd say Rose is notable...! PetePrkr 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. You don't look at the number of search results found through google, you look at the number of unique hits, by scrolling to the end of the pages. Christina Noir in quotes returns exactly 76 unique pages [1]. This means that of the 799 listed in the intitial search (the amount listed as total found before scrolling to the end), 723 were mirrors, internal pages of the same sites, etc. Not that google is the ultimate authority. Some subjects do not lend themselves to lots of webpage listings while still being notable. Porn actress notability on the other hand, appears to me to be a perfect subject for a "google notability test."--Fuhghettaboutit 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then by this method the Paizley Adams example above would return only 423 entries than the 80,000 cited above? I guess the problem I'm having with this is she seems about as notable as several of the other entries on the list - not that that's a justification for inclusion. I agree that Google is not and should not be the ultimate authority however. PetePrkr 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Someone (don't remember who) pointed out in another AfD that the "unique" hits only looks at the first 1000 total returned, so in this case, with only 800 total, it's valid, but once the totals go over 1000 the unique hits aren't really meaningful. Fan1967 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 800 ghits for a porn person? Yeah, right. Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She doesn't appear to be notable enough with less than 1,000 Google hits and nothing implying verifiability. The fact that the article knows how many pets she has had suggests vanity as well. Capitalistroadster 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator is admittedly her husband. Fan1967 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. self-promotion --DavidGC 02:15, 20 May 2006 (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.