Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Fishburne (2nd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Fishburne[edit]

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

Non-notable, no encyclopedic sources. Draco^E 22:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article looked like this before being pruned considerably by the nominator in case anybody wants context. Beerest355 Talk 18:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored the article to the state just before the nomination. Effectively blanking the article before nominating it for deletion is not appropriate; !voters should be able to assess the quality of sources for themselves. Hqb (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you’re coming from, but restoring the article to its previous state does not address the issues. The sources are still sub-standard. How about trying to rewrite this article with actual sources? Draco^E 17:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Quite a bit of RS available. [1] [2] [3] Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- accesshollywood.com, hollywoodreporter.com, and eonline.com are now considered encyclopedic sources? Please try harder. Draco^E 17:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unencyclopedic =/= unreliable. But, after mulling over it for a while, I think I'll go with a redirect as everyone else seems to have some better points. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this appears to be quite disruptive. The subject easily passes GNG: outside of sources already included in the article, more stuff is available online, eg. USA Today, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, People, ABC News. Cavarrone 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having reviewed Cavarrone's supposed listing of "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that give Fishburne "significant coverage", I see a series of fails. The USA Today piece is a one-liner. Twelve words. That's not significant coverage. The Huffington Post's series of "NSFW photos", "went all-out" and "nearly nude" is not what we call a reliable source. Likewise a publication phrasing itself "The barely legal star said". And the People source is a barely warmed-over version of that same publicity-seeking press release. Thin stuff. More than thin. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been called into question... the USA Today is not twelve words, probably you just read the summary, it is sufficent you click the link. I concede you Huffington Post's articles are quite gossipy. People source is far from being a press release, it is sufficent you read "Montana Fishburne, 18, tells PEOPLE..."; yes, it was reprised by many other sources, maybe some parts were later used in a press release (I have no idea which PR you refer), but that's quite different. And the ABC News article is so patently reliable you ignored it in your above analysis. The same with sources by Taylor Trescott, you ignored as well. Cavarrone 06:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Demiurge1000. WP:GNG demands "significant coverage" in reliable sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail – there simply isn't enough here in quantity or quality to write an encyclopedic biography. Andreas JN 466 03:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laurence Fishburne - no career or coverage of note, so fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited from a famous relative. None of the blogs and TMZ-style stuff would give a minor porn actress a shred of coverage if it wasn't for her father. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman. The subject is not notable, she's merely notorious. There is no reliable material with which to create a bio that isn't almost completely negative and isn't sourced exclusively to tabloids. She merits a paragraph in her father's bio, nothing more. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So famous actor has an embarrassing child. Guess what you have all been an embarrassment to you've parents at one point or other in your lives. That doesn't meant that you are worthy of an article in an 'encyclopedia', maybe a paragraph in a gossip column, or the subject of talk by parents outside the school gates, or maybe even a mention in court report, but an encyclopedia entry nope. So kill it as per Tarky above. John lilburne (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage satisfying the GNG, persisting through the current day. Please note the update I just added to the article. Please note the expansion I just added to the article, noting that Ms Fishburne has become a prominent example of the erotica industry's failure to deliver the benefits so often touted in the initial bursts of its publicity. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the GNG with multiple reliable sources about her. Does not fall under BLP1E since coverage goes beyond one event (sex tape). Coverage persisted years after the video Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2013 (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.