Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbie Griffin

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbie Griffin

This article was speedied under CSD A7 before, but apparently recreated. Since another attempt to speedy would probably just begin a cycle of delete-recreate-delete ad nauseum, I have brought this to AFD. Subject has not done anything of note for inclusion in Wikipedia, even for a model. Therefore, I propose that this article be deleted unless we can find some reason why she should have an entry in a general encyclopedia. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Adendum: Also, should this AfD succeed, we should delete the redirects Michelle McCurry and Sandy Reed, and {{orfud}} the image as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. -- Captain Disdain 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn per WP:BIO. People get sued all the time that doesn't necessarily make them notable. No verifiable neutral source for notability otherwise, some of the porn links don't even show her, and I doubt we need to 'join' to be able to learn if she's inside. Crum375 18:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What isn't notable about this famous adult entertainer who garners over 225,000 hits on Google? [1] Silensor 02:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• AFAICT, most ghits are commercial sites, many linked to each other. What we need for WP inclusion is a neutral site, that reliably indicates to us that she is well known, i.e. notable per WP:BIO. If there is one, I couldn't find it. Remember 'neutral' means, among other criteria, not making money from the promotion. Crum375 10:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable and Wikipedia needs more articles on porn stars. bbx 12:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Any notable persons are acceptable for WP, porn stars or not. But they must be notable by WP criteria, per WP:BIO and WP:RS. Just a bunch of interlinked ads and promos do not confer notability. There must be a neutral source (e.g. that does not get money from promoting the person) that vouches for notability. If you think a person is notable, all you need is to point to one such neutral and reliable source, and it's a keeper. Just saying they are notable won't cut it. Crum375 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• There are many neutral and reliable sources in the two hundred thousand links provided, most of the sites are not pay-per-view or commercial based. You are not properly citing the WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'Many' > 1, right? Can you please cite one such neutral and reliable site, that shows she's notable, that does not get paid to promote her? That's all it would take to get her in. Crum375 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a notable porn star, and Wikipedia should document the subject accordingly. Yamaguchi先生 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per above --Haham hanuka 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable porn star, not to mention the AVN lawsuit writeup. A pornstar making AVN's headlines is like getting a headline story in the New York Times. AVN is THE #1 porn industry rag.  ALKIVAR™ 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  Do you think she would make the porn notability criteria? If so, how? Crum375 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yep... Criteria #6: "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through adult film industry news or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets." News story in AVN I mentioned above qualifies.  ALKIVAR™ 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• So from now on, if this one gets kept, all an aspiring porn star, eager for free Wiki advertizing has to do, is get in a minor dispute with an agent, have a minor lawsuit, get cited for it in the porn press, and voila - instant free lifetime wiki-publicity. Somehow I don't think this is what our Founding wiki-Fathers had in mind for an encyclopedia, nor is it my own read of porn notability criteria, but I could be wrong. Crum375 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the sum of all human knowledge. Any "free Wiki advertizing" is incidental, we're providing coverage in a neutral and verifiable manner. If you have any doubts as to what the founding fathers had in mind, why not just go ask one. Silensor 02:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this may not be PC to say, but I wonder if the keep-delete ratio is a function of the easiness-on-the-eyes quotient of the particluar AfD candidate. Crum375 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, nn-bio. Being sued does not make one notable. --Golbez 05:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Crum375. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is a notabel pornstar we should cover here not a nnbio Yuckfoo 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Vegaswikian 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• A keep or delete vote here does not count for much unless it is explained, based on applying the WP policies to the article in question. Crum375 01:29, 9 June 2006 (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.