Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Gold (porn actress)

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. Rx StrangeLove 06:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maya Gold (porn actress)

No claim to notability in her field. Also, it is unlikely that any information will be available on her any time in the near future, given the secretive nature of pornographic performers. (Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can always go back and create the article when verifiable biographical information comes to light -- but right now this article is, from my perspective, porncruft.) Thus, my nomination, along with my vote to delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so she's listed on the porno version of imdb (as well as the real one). The porno IMDB has the following encyclopaedic data:

Performer AKA Maya, Mya

Birthday No Data

Astrology No Data

Birthplace No Data

Years Active 2002-2004

Ethnicity Caucasian

Hair Color Blonde

Measurements No Data

Height No Data

Weight No Data

Tattoos None

Piercings None

Website No Data

So, once we excise the unverifiable we have an article which says her name, and counts the films. Since these films are apparently churned out at the rate of one or two a day by their film crews, that essentially amounts to "she was active in the porn film industry for a couple of years".

Which is a long-winded way of saying delete functionally unverifiable porncruft. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would say delete as unmemorable day after tomorrow. Denni ☯ 03:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- I find this an unusual point of view, that would mean the loss of almost all material related to history because it was, at one time, non-n otabel, before becoming notable again in a different context --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd care to try this again in English... Denni ☯ 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. Lara Roxx may well be next with this precedent ;-). Eddie.willers 05:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. ***V*** recently deleted the AfD with the message "Article vandalized and placed on deletion list." Doesn't seem like a bad faith edit on the surface but ***V***'s only edits are related to this article.
• Keep. Probably lots of info available-- JJay 08:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Given that neither IMDB nor IAFD can verify even the basic details like date of birth or real name I'd say that "probably" is putting it a bit strongly :-) Using the cited sources I was unable to verify a single biographical fact in this article with the exception of her being Hungarian (see above for the IAFD listing data). This article is functionally unverifiable, as far as I can tell. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What you can verify is that she has done over 100 films, many with major producers such as Private. She has thousands of fans. Therefore she is notable as far as I'm concerned. -- JJay 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually I can't verify "hundreds" of films, and I can't verify "thousands of fans" either. Even if we could distinguish those who buy a film as fans from those who are just buying another porn movie, there are no sales figures in the cited sources. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Verify this: [1]. This woman is the real deal. -- JJay 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The issue is not of her existence, but the existence of this article given the absence of any verifiable biographical information. Just because some scriptkiddie decides to write a virus and distribute it with the promise of a pornographic screensaver doesn't add anything of substance to this article. (If anything, this information should be added into the article on computer viruses or the article on the virus itself, if only as an example.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have to disagree. How far would the virus have gotten had it been distributed with pics of Margaret Thatcher? -- JJay 09:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hypothetical info does not satisfy a real policy. --Last Malthusian 10:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete non-notable. Stifle 23:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - having IMDB and IAFD references make her pretty notable usually. Also, can everyone who is voting look at my proposal for a separate criteria for pornography here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Criteria_for_Pornography and contribute to ideas. Thank you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also note when checking porn articles you can look at Wiki Porn here: [2]. As it so happens, this article hasn't been entered in there yet. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I put up the porn box for her. I've got her bust size, photo, aliases, age, hair colour, eye colour and aliases. That's as much as we have for anyone else. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Zordrac, what was your source for those stats? The sources I found admitted the measurements were speculative. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I put it in the article [3] and it didn't say it was speculative. It might not be 100% accurate, but its a source. I don't know how accurate we can get for things like this, where they often lie about who they are, and other times just refuse to give details. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just as a comparison, there is this article here Mia_Stone that has no more info in it than Maya's (indeed it has less), and that person is a lot less notable, with much fewer films etc. I just picked the first one I could find in the Hungarian Porn Star list, and there we go. She is notable enough by the standards that we currently use. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Zordrac, I understand what you are saying, but what it amounts to is that the sources available for porn "stars" are neither reliable nor authoritative. That is not a good reason for using their info because there is none better available! At the very least a biography should have someon's real name, we haven't even got that. There is next to no properly verifiable data (in the Wikipedian sense of verifiable from trusted secondary sources) on this person. IMDB is a reasonably trustworty secondary source, the porn databases probably aren't as they are prone to PR puff from subjects and speculation from fans. As far as I can see this article is still functionally unverifiable in the Wikipedian sense. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I thought that this was a good point, so researched (and discovered verifiable proof) of the real names of a number of porn stars, namely Tiffany Teen, Tawnee Stone and Jordan Capri and included their real names in the articles. Apparently the porn community of Wikipedia has decided that real names CANNOT be included in articles of porn stars because of a fear of stalking them. Thus, we cannot include them. I would personally be quite happy to, but we are not allowed to. Apparently I am in some trouble for providing more verifiable information with those cases. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the names are not widely known and do not come from verifiable sources. (I've done some checking on my own. For instance Tawnee Stone's real name was "revealed" on a bulletin board system. Basically, due to the nature of bullein boards, this information doesn't suit the verfiability piece.) Now if the names came from a verifiable news site, such as AVN, then they would be suitable for inclusion. Even when people are concerned about "internet stalking". Obviously, if you can list some of your sources here, then we can go through them as a group and see which ones are truly verifiable sources. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 07:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat surprised to find a "porn community" on Wikipedia, and even more surprised that they feel they can censor information which is available from other verifiable sources in this way. That sounds like they think they own part of Wikipedia. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:16, 20 December 2005 (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.