Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tericka Dye

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. postdlf (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tericka Dye

Tericka Dye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable either as a porn actress (fails WP:PORNBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources of her film work) or as a teacher (fails WP:TEACHER) and fails WP:BIO, in the news only for having to give up the teaching career when her acting background was exposed in 2006 and in 2011. Per WP:BLP1E (the two job loss incidents are a repetition of the same basic event) and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:BLP also says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."Edison (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - rationale is different from the nominator. Based mainly on NOTNEWS. BLP1E does not apply because they are two separate events 5 years apart even though they are similar. Further the multiple press coverage cited in the article demonstrates that wikipedia would not be the primary vehicle for the spread of claims. I agree this is sensationalistic material though low on the notability scale of the two events and would just add to the harm. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Multiple press coverage. Passes WP:GNG and I can see this article being of use to someone researching the transition of people from the adult film industry into the "mainstream". Some have done this and some have failed to make that transition. In the end, we're an encyclopedia and I see this as valuable to that end. Dismas|^(talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - I first saw this story reported on USAToday, and in checking to see if it happened to be in wikipedia, I saw that the wikipedia article gives broader and deeper information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Dismas says it has news articles (agreed) and that it is useful and interesting. Bugs says "I saw it in USA Today." These arguments do not address WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E as well as other deletion reasons given in the nomination. Edison (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You missed the part where I went to wikipedia to see if there was more in-depth info. And there was. I often use wikipedia to try and find out more about something I might see mentioned in the news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep this article.

• Keep I attended high school in the late 1970s in the Midwest. The band and orchestra directors were both committing statutory rape with/on their students, and those of us who knew about it couldn't get the administration to address the problem. The band director was moved to another school, and the orchestra director went into "early retirement." Both these teachers should have faced then, at the least, the attention given to Ms. Dye today; meanwhile, I can only, and at worst, imagine that she survived some system similar to that which failed my classmates; and that unlike my teachers then, she poses no threat whatsoever - unless of course we don't want our children to learn that there are predators in the world, that said predators have and will get away with hurting others. If we are to overcome the damage done by the "teachers" who got and get away with the worst of things, we must embrace those who survive the worst of things and even entrust them with a mere hour of our children's scholastic day - for people that have lived through such things might just teach with genuine dedication; and they might be the first to call out any teacher crossing the line, or anyy system failing to stop it. Ever consider that? I think we all should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.98.191 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a joke, right? Edison, you are joking. You have to be. Either that or you have a personal adgenda that you are pushing here. For over five years this article has been here and now you just wander by and start trying to stir things up. Name any other porn teacher who has been fired from their job before. And not just once, but twice! There are HUNDREDS of articles in Wikipedia about porn stars. Why should this girl be any different? You are just trying to push a personal agenda here. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete While I understand the point by that WP:BLP1E may not apply, on the grounds that she's been outed as a ex-porn actress on two occasions rather than one, both are minor, and both can be seen as a continuum. In effect, her claim to notability here is that she's an ex-porn star who has hit the news twice when that prior life was revealed. Otherwise she is not a public figure, is trying to keep a low profile, and is unlikely to hit the news again. Meanwhile, she's be trying to move away from her (not very controversial) past by changing her name, and having this coverage here has some risk of causing her harm. WP:NOTNEWS probably does apply, but for me the main reason to delete comes down to a consideration of the harm this article risks causing someone trying to rebuild their life after being outed, compared to the public interest served in having this article in the future. Given that I can't see any special enduring value in the article, but I can see a risk of harm to the subject, I think the apparent intent of BLP (as outlined by Edison), BLP1E and NOTNEWS comes into play. - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As noted earlier, the article has been here for nearly 4 years now, and suddenly someone decides it needs to be deleted. Well, my guess is that Edison stumbled across it because of the recent news coverage. You do have a point about the potential for causing harm, given that the subject has not been accused of breaking any laws (has she?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Given that there are 3.5 million articles, there are likely a large number that have lingered for 4 years before being brought to AFD. I would love to see an age tabulation of article that have been deleted in the last year. Granted, new crappy articles are more likely to be spotted on "new article" or "recent changes" patrol. Longevity of an article in no way satisfies WP:N or any other guideline I can think of for why an article belongs in an encyclopedia, and there is no rule at all against bringing a 4 year old article to AFD. Doesn't this article predate both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, so when it was created all anyone would have looked at was "Is it in the newspapers?" which is no longer a sufficient excuse to keep an article about a person of dubious notability who is publicized for one thing she is seeking to put behind her? Edison (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Just in regard the question regarding breaking laws - no, there hasn't been any accusation along those lines, and she wasn't fired from either position (rather, her contract wasn't or won't be renewed). - Bilby (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:GNG easily. There is ample coverage dating back to 2006; she appeared on Dr. Phil as well. This passes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E in that these are two separate events (note she did not get suspended in 2011) and that this incident is not routine news. Routine news is a teacher having sex with kids; this unfortunately happens way too often. But national coverage is received (and a spot on Conan, too!) in notable, non-routine cases like this. There is plainly no violation of NOTNEWS or BLP1E here. The reliable sources are many and they do not stop after one month. She is (marginally) notable for being an adult film actress as well, and if BLP1E should be further argued here, this must also be taken into consideration. There is no "one event" occurring here, it is a series of events. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out the abundance of international coverage she has received: El Comercio, La Vanguardia, El Mundo, Peru.com, Dat Viet, Ngoi Sao, La Voz Libre, El Diario, and Cho Sun, to name but a few. It is clear to me that the subject of the article being discussed here passes WP:GNG. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • • There is no amount of news about one event which is not covered by WP:NOTNEWS. A teacher being exposed as a former porn star of little notability is "one event," the first time, and "one event" the second time. Edison (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Last I checked, 1+1=2. Regardless, WP:NOTNEWS covers routine news events. Otherwise, we could delete Deepwater Horizon oil spill as well, because all it ever received was news coverage. I wouldn't call being fired for the same reason twice, in two different instances, and attracting national attention both times, routine, because it does not occur regularly. The coverage in reliable secondary sources means that the subject passes WP:GNG and I'm not sure where your argument is going at this point. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
        • If she was trying to be 'undercover' or low profile, then why did she put herself into the public eye as a school teacher? If i did porn, the last thing I would be doing is standing up in a classroom and teaching children. it's just commonsense that parents would be really really upset at having a porn star teach their kids. Plus, after being caught the first time, why did she do the very same thing again? Monica Lewinsky is only known for one event or one thing, yet she has an article, too. Adolf Hitler only did one thing, too (kill the jews), yet he has an article. Neil Armstrong also only did one thing, and then left the public eye, yet his article continues. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
          • RenamedUser5, with all due respect, your argument falls apart after Lewinsky. Hitler and Armstrong have many more reasons each to have an article besides killing jews and landing on the moon, respectively. Hitler would have an article as a head of state and Armstrong did many things before and after walking on the moon. Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral The refrences look OK... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• What on earth is "neutral" supposed to mean at AfD when the rationale is, "The refrences [sic] look OK"? Yes, they look very pretty, anything else you wanted to add that's relevant to policy? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to say delete but since I have no idea who she is, it may be someone famous I don't know. THe article is cited properly and use notable sites as references. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes even less sense. You're saying that, if you knew her, you would prefer deletion of this article, but since you don't, you're !voting neutral (which means you made an edit here that means nothing) because {{cite news}} is pretty? Also, please note that "notable sites" does not mean "reliable sources". Conservapedia is a notable site but no one would ever use it as a reference on Wikipedia because it is ... well, I'm not going to go there. Could you please present a policy-based rationale for your opinion? Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that I do not quite know if she's famous enough or notable enough for Wikipedia's standards. Based on the writing and the references, I would say weak keep. However, based on WP:PORNBIO and WP:NOTNEWS, I would say she's not notable enough. All in all, I support inclusionism so I would say meh, weak keep. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am now even more confused. If you do not know whether she is worthy for inclusion, why are you commenting here blindly? You should either examine the topic or abstain from making uninformed comments. Your opinion should take into account the relevant policies, not the quality of the writing. In addition, just because you tend to agree with a certain viewpoint (in this case inclusionism), does not make a rationale-less !vote any more valid. May I ask again, that you clarify your position? What specifically (not just "the references") makes you believe that keeping the article is a good decision? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Pilotbob (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep If the article wasn't notable, it wouldn't have come up again in the media. Patcat88 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Given WP:NOTNEWS, the previous argument counts for nothing. Edison (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Fails PORNBIO and NOTNEWS. A high school teacher who used to be a porn actress briefly is not notable. Its tabloid fodder and an embarrassment to the local community, nothing more.. "Coverage in reliable publications" is not an excuse to cover everything the newspapers ever report..♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment She was not a porn actress "briefly, Blofeld." She was a porn actress for many years. "Many years" is NOT the same as "briefly". User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Could you elaborate on your last statement? How much coverage do you think is necessary for this subject to pass WP:GNG? I believe I have already covered the NOTNEWS argument above; the coverage is not "routine". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I know this wasn't directed at me, so my apologies for commenting in this part. But the GNG describes what we need before including an article. It covers necessary, rather than sufficient, conditions, thus it is reasonable to not include an article even if it meets the GNG as other concerns may come into play. That said, in this case, the idea that a teacher would not have her contract renewed because of a past indiscretion is not special - it happens all the time. The only unusual factor is that she was an ex-porn actress, which turns it into tabloid fodder. If, one day, this story becomes more important - in particular if it is cited outside of the narrow confines of the event - then I'd support including it. Just not at the moment, especially given the risk of ongoing harm to the subject. - Bilby (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I understand what you're saying, but the issue is that it was more than just one event. I have found coverage on Google News that covers multiple events: her suspension, her lawsuit to get the job back (and subsequent dropping of the suit), her appearance on Dr. Phil, her second outing. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There is a very important sociological issue involved. What this woman did in her youth, while not illegal, is causing her to suffer job discrimination. It is adequately documented that she has in effect lost two respectable jobs because, in essence, she herself is not considered “respectable.” There is no discussion that she is in anyway incompetent performing her teaching duties, nor is there any mention that she has tried to sexually influence, or corrupt, her students. There is absolutely no indication that she had or attempted to have sex with any of her students.

This is a prima facie case of morality vs. legality. The “wrong” committed by the subject of the article was to engage in sexual activity on camera, for pay, in a state in which this is not a crime. The wrong, committed by the at least the first school district, was to fire her without giving her a valid reason; instead they hid behind weasel words like “disruptive influence.” The school district realized that they were in such a weak position legally that instead firing her, they paid her to the end of her contract, and then just didn’t renew it. A hearing might very well have resulted in a finding that there were insufficient legal grounds for firing her.

That would have been unacceptable to the school district, obviously. The issue here is when does morality, as defined by the local community standards, trump individual civil rights? This woman’s civil rights are being denied her. Her legal ability to fight for her rights to practice her profession is apparently being circumvented by threats of ostracization, either implied or overt. How is this not an important story? Seercat (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're making a case for keeping the article, which is fine. But since you bring it up, there is no constitutional right to be a teacher, especially a teacher of the underage, so I don't think the civil rights issue would fly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, so many people don't really understand the US Constitution. Check out Amendment 14, Section 1, the Due Process clause. That would be good a starting place. The idea that the Constitution would have to specifically enumerate each and every right of the individual was and still is a ridiculous idea, one that the Framers didn't fall for. The Constitution reserves all rights to the states and individuals except what it specifically sets aside for the Federal Government.Seercat (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How would due process apply here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Her right to a hearing to protest her firing was circumvented by the first school district by the quasi legal tactic of paying off her contract, and then they refused to renew it. Her job performance was not an issue apparently. They cited a vague and subjective rational for not renewing it.Seercat (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The most she could expect from them is money, since they can't be forced to give her the job back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they could be forced to give her job back. Monetary damages in a case like this would be the fall back option.Seercat (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Schools cannot be forced to hire or rehire someone they consider to be a bad influence or a potential danger to the kids. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 03:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they could be forced to give her job back. If they had had a hearing, she could have presented her side of the story, and tried to convince the school board that she was a decent teacher. If the school board didn't present proof to the contrary, and fired her anyway, she could have sued to force the school district to give her back her job. The reason that the Due Process Clause is part of the US Constitution is to limit unfair behavior by governmental agencies, and to protect an individual from adverse action that results in detriment. She probably would have prevailed. Seercat (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how. Schools have the right to protect their kids. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The school has a right to teach students that they live in a democracy, one that protects the rights of all individuals. They don't have unlimited power to restrict who can or can not be a teacher. This country was founded on the principle that all are equal in the eyes of the law. I don't dispute that the school had a right to question her qualifications, what I'm saying is that they didn't play fair. And, that was the worst possible lesson they could have taught these students.Seercat (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has a constitutional right to any specific job, especially one where they're exposed to an audience considered vulnerable. Can you imagine the outrage in the community if they took her back? Parents would likely sue the school district for putting their children at risk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, you need to brush up on the Constitution. And, read the sources for this article too. The students and their parents supported the teacher. She was put on paid leave until her contract expired against the stated wishes of the parents of her students.Seercat (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Do people who worship Satan or are members of NAMBLA have constitutional rights to be school teachers? I would hope not. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

First Amendment Freedom of Religion would indicate that they would. Satanists anyway, don't know who NAMBLA is/are so can't comment on them.Seercat (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. A school could not be compelled to hire a known satanist, regardless of their alleged qualifications. Meanwhile, known membership in NAMBLA, which is a national organization of child molesters, would absolutely be a disqualifier from teaching anyone who's underage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 05:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK Bugs, prove it. Where in the Constitution do you find "except for Satanists or Satan worshipers?" I know I'm going to catch it from the moderator, but really! Where do you get your information about what rights schools have. Witches, Wiccans, and NeoPagans, are frequently mistaken as devil worshipers by Christians. Some of them have fought and won court fights to keep their jobs as teachers. Why not Satanists too? They are entitled to the same protections under the Constitution that Christians and Jews are. I agree with you about this NAMBLA thing though. That's sick. Seercat (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Where in the constitution does it compel a school, or any other institution for that matter, to hire anybody that wants a job just because they are theoretically academically "qualified"? Institutions have hiring rules. They're not allowed to discriminate based on race or sex, unless the job calls for it (the acting profession being an obvious example of that), but they can certainly use discretion in many other areas. For example, they might not want to hire teachers who smoke. And if they think a teacher's character is questionable or that they would prove problematic in some other way, they don't have to hire them, or as in this case, they can let the contract lapse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, the First Amendment has a Non Establishment Clause. By refusing to hire a Satanist, the school would implicitly be establishing a religious test as a qualification for employment in a public position. That is so not allowed. I know you don't like this, but you live a country where this is the law, not what you think should be right. A Witch, a Wiccan, a Christian, a Druid, a Jew, a Santeria practitioner, whatever, can not be discriminated against, whether or not people like or, don't like, their religion, belief, or faith. (A non public employer, such as the Catholic Church, has a much greater degree of freedom to discriminate than a public, governmental, agency, such as a local school district; kind of the same way a photographer is free not to hire a obese bikini model, a Satanist in a Catholic school wouldn't be a good fit.)

It's not a religious test, it's a concern over possible harm to the children. If you can find a case where a public school has hired an openly satanist or wiccan teacher, I'd like to know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You can bluntly say "wrong" as much as you wish, but the fact is this, it is you who is wrong. You want the US Constitution to be too flexible, protecting those whom you agree with, and not protecting those who you would rather not be protected. This is the same reason the American Civil Liberty Union gets so much flack when they defend Nazis. Either the Constitution applies to everyone or it is a worthless piece of paper. Lastly, your "there is no Constitutional Right to Blah, Blah Blah," just proves that you really don't understand the basic principles embodied in the Constitution. If you wish to continue this debate, go ahead, have the last word. This is mine. If you send me a message, I would be delighted to debate with you in private, but not here.Seercat (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

RenamedUser5 and Bugs, you do not know what you are talking about. There is nothing against the law about worshipping Satan if you so please and it would indeed be protected as a religion. If a Satanist harmed a child, that would be covered under existing laws, but there's nothing even implicit in the idea of Satanism about harming children unless you subscribe to the myths of the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria. NAMBLA is not a "national organization of child molesters" either, but an advocacy group for pedophiles and pederasts working to repal age of consent laws. Yes, I find this disgusting, but it's not quite the same thing. In the case of a publicly known membership of NAMBLA, the school district would possibly have a case, however, if you cared to read the article on the subject, you would see that there have already been a number of legal cases attempting to indict NAMBLA as a source of crimes against children, and all have failed in court. So honestly I'm not sure what would come of such an event. However, your mentions of Satanists and NAMBLA members are red herrings. Starring in porn is not comparable to either except in an extremely myopic 400-Club universe.--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• She was not fired. Her contract was not renewed. Since she was fully paid off on her contract, that would all that she is entitled to. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The key question would be, was there anything in the contract that guaranteed the right to renew or at least to negotiate a renewal? Or was such renewal strictly at the discretion of the shcool? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fired, contract not renewed, same thing in this case. Since there was no hearing, this was what a lawyer would call a constructive discharge.Seercat (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. When you contract for a job, you are entitled to that job for only a specific amount of time. Once that time is up, that's it. You are done. This is very common with teachers. It is only AFTER you get tenure that your job is protected. That is what all the teachers and such are bitching about all across the U.S., that school districts and local governments want to do away with tenure so they can more easily cut budgets. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Worked at UC Berkeley for twenty years, so I know something about how these things work. The question is, if her past had not become an issue, would her contract have been renewed? If it would have been, then the argument that it was just her time to go is meaningless.Seercat (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason for a contract instead of a hire is precisely in order to be able to say "Bye!" once the contract is up. If she were a tenured employee, it could be different. But unless her contract stipulated that she had a renewal option, then I don't see where's she's got a case. It's a contract. Unless the contract stipulates otherwise, I don't see how they could be compelled to renew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For most people, porn star = hooker. What if she had been a former murderer, but was a really excellent PE teacher and the school didn't know that she was a former murderer? A teacher is expected to have the highest of morals because they are teaching vulnerable young people how to be proper and successful adults. That's great that she got out of the porn / hooker business (or is not longer a murderer), but that doesn't mean that I would want her to teach my children (when I decide to have kids).User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But a porn star is NOT a prostitute. It is not illegal to act in porn. Neither are comparable to murder except that both prostitution and murder are illegal (even then, there's a huge difference). If someone was a convicted murderer there would be an obvious compelling reason not to hire them for a job among children. What is the implicit harm that a former porn actress would cause?--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have the basic decency not to punish people for something in their past as was done in The Scarlet Letter. No notability as either a teacher or as a porn actress. Just titillating tabloid journalism. Many bio articles such as this have been deleted on the basis of doing the decent thing and avoiding further harm to the subject. Wikipedia is too prominent and too permanent a forum for something such as this. Edison (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

More prominent than USA Today??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so you finally admit that your position is based upon a POV in wanting not to "punish" this lady. Morality does not have anything to do with wikipedia articles. If that were the case then a great many articles would be deleted. Anyone who opposes a particular article could then say that the article is immoral in their opinion and have it deleted. I don't see anything immoral about this article. Where or not her acts as a porn star are immoral or as a former porn star now teacher of children are immoral do not matter. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, in the more recent case she basically outed herself. I do share some of Edison's concerns as to whether there's a risk of harm to the subject as per BLP rules. And while I'm arguing in favor of notability. There is still some question about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as a minor point of clarification - a student identified her in a film, and she chose to inform the school. I guess you woudl say she was outed by the student. - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What risk of harm do you refer to, Baseball Bugs? That people won't hire her to be a teacher cuz she's a porn star? Guess she shouldn't have done porn then. It's not like anyone is going to beat her up, so I do not see what harm might befall her. And the fact that these news articles are not only local (from the St. Louis area), but national - and international- as well, is not the fault of Wikipedia. It's her fault for not using some commonsense with her career & life decisions.User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And you are right, Bilby. I mentioned early on here that she should have just denied it. She looks nothing like she did when she was doing porn. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Denying it would make firing her a lot easier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we please try to argue by policy here? If there was a significant risk, I would support deletion of the article because, RenamedUser5, that's the point of the BLP policy. Even if there are international newspapers covering this, we (Wikipedians) have the ethical duty of protecting peoples' privacy to a certain extent. However, as I find the risk minimal here, I'm in favor of keeping per the abundance of continuing coverage. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but there is a risk of harm to all subjects. Unfortunately, she made a decision in the 1990s and she's received ample coverage from respectable sources for it. There's a risk that our article on Obama's family threatens their safety (because someone could kidnap one relative and use it as leverage against Obama) but we don't delete it because of that. The risk of harm in regards to the article being discussed here is minimal and the article tries to stay neutral and not portray her in a completely bad light (as some news reports have, astonishingly, done). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Instead of debating the legal merits of this case, can we please focus on Wikipedia policy-related discussion on whether to include this subject or not? It makes the closing administrator's job more tedious if they have to read paragraphs of irrelevant text, such as the above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe that should be moved to the talk page. It is an interesting question, and it does have some potential bearing on the notability of the article, if she decides to take some kind of legal action. Against the school, that is. Not against wikipedia. Since wikipedia demands reliable sourcing, her complaint would not be with wikipedia, it would be with USAToday.com. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This article meets the General Notability Guideline as I understand it. It is about two separate events, with multiple sources, is not an essay, or a point of view. It does, however, embody a excellent example of the conflict in American Culture between morality and legality. I don't believe that keeping the article will cause any more damage to the reputation or image of the subject than has already occurred. Wikipedia isn't about censorship merely because the subject of an article involves sexual topics. The clearest measure for keeping it is, would this article be useful or informative ten or twenty years from now. I believe that it will. More young women (and men too) are involved in the sex industry than ever before in our history. When they get to be a little older and less beautiful, but hopefully wiser, they too may find work in sensitive occupations such as teaching.Seercat (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is where we differ. I can't see any possibility that the story of a woman not having a teaching contract renewed because of her past occupation will be significant in six months, much less ten years. :) If there was some evidence that this was of note beyond the tabloids, I'd agree that notnews doesn't apply. But at the moment there's no reason to believe that the story will have any impact. This isn't about censorship - just that we don't need to minor stories, with no evidence that they are more than minor tabloid news, where such coverage would mean that a person could potentially be harmed by the coverage. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:EFFECT, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." WP:PERSISTENCE says, "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Therefore, I'm not sure your argument should be used here because neither side can predict the future. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Depending on how this goes, it might be worth revisiting the discussion in six months, once we have an idea if there is to be any lasting coverage. - Bilby (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as per User:Fetchcomms. WereWolf (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - No PornBio pass, obviously. As for the rest, two insignificant events don't always add up to overall notability. This is an otherwise low-profile person, not seeking publicity or fame...hell, she's using different names to keep her past private...who has regrettably been fired from two jobs for her porn past. How about a little bit of editorial discretion and common sense for once? Let this go. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. The operative words in WP:NOTNEWS would seem to be enduring notability in this case. This person's campaign to "re-integrate into the mainstream" has been going on for years now and is extremely well documented, i.e. in national news outlets on both the first and second occasions of firing and the lawsuit, in the pop media (Dr. Phil), etc. I agree with the point made above that such re-integration is a social phenomenon that is likely to be studied more seriously in the future, so this person's case is important precisely because it is so well documented. Lastly, perhaps the prolix off-topic chatter above should be collapsed. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

• there is no off topic 'chatter'.User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• satanism and druids are not really "on-topic" – this is just a debate about whether Dye is notable and we seem to agree she is. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

• Keep. Received significant mainstream media coverage. —Lowellian (reply) 11:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS, as the news coverage is routine and insignificant, and WP:BLP1E may apply as the two events are closely related. The article may also cause her further harm in the future. Epbr123 (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I interpret "routine" as an unexceptional homicide or rape or whatnot (however sad it may be), not a topic that has received coverage in multiple international media outlets. Could you elaborate on how this coverage is "routine an insignificant"? I don't think that Vietnamese, Korean, Spanish, Ecuadorian, and Peruvian sources would exist for truly routine news. They certainly don't cover each of the one or two shootings that happens every night in my city. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, please explain how further harm can be caused to her in the future. Just making that claim doesn't mean that it is true or likely to happen. As stated above, in earlier arguments, it is not like anyone is going to beat her up over this. And all anyone needs to do is Google her name and they will see that she is a porn star. Plus, she was on the Dr. Phil show and said the same thing in front of MILLIONS of people. So how can she be further harmed by this?User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Meets the GNG without any difficulty. Passes ONE EVENT and NOT NEWS. The only possible reason for deletion would be DO NO HARM, and I would consider that very seriously in a case like this--except for that appearance on Dr. Phil. Having done that of her own accord, she has decided that publicity would not harm her, so I don't see that our entry here can do so. I note this AfD as featuring one of the most thoroughly irrelevant discussions at AfD in a long time. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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.