Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity St. Clair

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This one's tricky. Arguments raised: fails specific notability for porn actors (PORNBIO) as they have not received any actual awards, hall-of-fame inductions, groundbreaking starring roles, or features in mainstream media; WP:BLP1E and/or WP:ONEEVENT for role in a scandal; failure of general notability guideline (GNG) otherwise. The subject's actual role in the event, as covered in the sources, was in passing and/or via hearsay (i.e., someone claimed she said something or claimed that it happened because it would end up on her website). Coupled with the fact that the actual controversy and/or relative notability of it is predominantly over two completely separate people's actions, its relationship to establishing the notability of the subject should, at best, only be weighted as equally as an in-passing mention with regard to application of the WP:GNG, which, as an in-passing mention, would be insufficient to establish notability. On top of that, the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy is to avoid doing harm, and if the sole fall-back of notability is realistically this event—that is, having an alleged, in-passing part in something scandalous happening to a famous CEO because of some other actress—it's furthermore argued that this independent biography would encourage the opposite thereof. Arguments given for keep failed to address these issues with policy and guideline-based rationales to the contrary. slakr\ talk / 01:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity St. Clair[edit]

Trinity St. Clair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. Little reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough coverage by reliable soures to satisfy the GNG on my end. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails PORNBIO. Fails GNG as the she recieves merely a passing mention in the LA Times & New York Post articles. Finnegas (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite detailed start class article. Cavarrone 08:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm bothered by the extent to which the desire to keep this article about an otherwise non-notable porn performer is leading to increasingly detailed COATRACKing of articles related to a notable, but not widely known to the public, movie industry figure. Key elements of the associated scandal have never been reliably confirmed as factual (although a very plausible case has been established). In the nine months or so since the scandal broke, the (sex-related) details of the scandal were excluded from the article, with BLP issues raised -- but over the last two weeks editors pushing to keep this porn performer article have been adding reported (but never quite confirmed) details of the scandal to various articles (sometimes with the never-quite-confirmed details presented as established facts.) I believe the longstanding treatment of the matter was more sensitive to BLP policy principles and more appropriate, and that those concerns should not be outweighed by the desire to have articles about the porn performers involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern appears to be misplaced since the information you allege is "coatracking" was only added after verifiable sources were found and cited. This article did not start with it. Since you and others have been in recent months challenging the notability of specifically porn performer articles and suggesting their deletion, this has lead to myself and others to begin digging for more sourced information which in many cases we have found. So in a sense, thank you for helping the dedicated few of us to improve so many porn related articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does appearing "in a lot of films" make her notable? Certainly does not help her pass either of WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Morbidthoughts and Cavarrone, two editors who i have had disagreements with in the past, but who I acknowledge to be perhaps the only WP users who have demonstrated that they are neither anti-porn nor pro-porn, but reasonable and unbiased. St. Clair does indeed pass the GNG, a guideline which is held in high regard on WP and has even been used as an excuse to depreciate PORNBIO. Several users masking their WP:COI by citing WP:IAR among other excuses have actually managed to get articles on porn stars who pass the GNG deleted as well (e.g. Luscious Lopez & The Love twins). WP's thriving anti-porn movement continues to be the elephant in the room. The recent mass deletions/PROD's/AfD's of porn biographies are proof of it. As mentioned above, this discussion has been taken to BLP/N, possibly out of fear for the projected "keep" or "no consensus" outcome. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage and also awards. — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now wins means there are no awards to count. Nominations are no longer valid grounds to keep. Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as a pornstar - fails PORNBIO and the scandal is BLP1E for her even if the coverage reaches the GNG. Any coverage on wikipedia should be on the blokes article only to avoid UNDUE. Lots of non-policy based keep votes here that should be discarded in the close. Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A quick summary of the proceedings thus far...
  • This AfD for was started on Feb 14 by Hullaballo Wolfowitz
  • Shortly thereafter the article has been expanded to include additional industry information as well as content covered by the mainstream press
  • This AfD has been relisted twice to gain more discussion
  • The article has roughly doubled in size since its creation 4 months ago

Additionally...

  • This performer is fairly new (since 2012)
  • She's already gained nominations (yes, I know they don't count officially) for major awards
  • She's already made mainstream appearances
  • Her involvement in the Nanula scandal has made her at the least not just "another anonymous porn star".

Saying right now that she is non-notable just seems premature given what we have for such a short, initial career. By the way, it seems curious that we have 17 distinct authors on this AfD discussion, but only 8 that have actually edited the article. Its too bad that its not the reverse.

That said, if those involved in this discussion feel that WP will be greatly improved by a strict adherence to policy and the deletion of this article, so be it. But there are other articles (porn and otherwise) that are likely more deserving of our time and attention.

How about we just close this as unresolved and give it 6-12 months? Just my 2 cents... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about you don't tell the closing admin how to do their job and let them weigh the votes themselves. Basically this personal has no notability as a porn star and barely scrape the GNG if at all before we look at BLP1E. Its premature to decide if someone is non-notable is by definition an argument to delete. I do hope that no non-admin tries to close this as this is clearly DRV material and not for the fainthearted. Spartaz Humbug! 20:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, I made a suggestion to the 17 Users who are involved in this discussion and anyone else that might be watching. What was the point of making up some nefarious intent behind my comment? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you can chill please, Scalhotrod your comment was in part shaming, in my opinion, but I feel the intent was to encourage more article improvement. Fine. let it go. You also alleged that in context of a limited career and being new, it was a decent start, that may be true, and we have thousands of much worse articles, even BLPs, but that doesn't mean this one gets a pass at meeting basic requirements. Spartaz, this again in my opinion, is pretty much split, and I see no reason a no consensus draw would not be a reasonable result. Perhaps the article is borderline but the original claims of sourcing have been addressed even if a "scandal" was a part of it, guess what scandals happen every day, and they are consider news and reported on endlessly. So stop the bickering and focus on improving articles, even this one. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Sport, thank you for your assessment. I did not intend any inference of shame, just trying to move things along in a peaceful way. I too am tired of the bickering and apologize to the group for any perceived "tone" in my response to Spartaz. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trinity_St._Clair&oldid=1144350010"