Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique DeMoan

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monique DeMoan

I think I'm going to have to renominate this, because otherwise it just serves to undermine VFD process. The article has not undergone a VFU and so should not have been reposted, regardless of merit. I also disagree with the unnecessary inclusion of non-prominent actors in a serious encyclopaedia. 80 films is actually very little for a porn star. Most notable porn actors/actresses have appeared in several hundred. If you want an example of a porn star who qualifies for inclusion, take a look at Vince Vouyer. Monique DeMoan is a total nobody. --Erwin Walsh 16:43, 15 August 2005 UTC

Additional note: see [[1]] as a reference. Erwin Walsh 16:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The previous nomination got completely confused on what problem was being addressed, but can be found here. I would ask people to please not vote on issues of process again, or this VfD will just be a repeat of the previous discussions. Those can be found at WP:AN/I. Vote as if the article is newly created and has had no prior history on VfU—which, in case of Tony Sidaway's rewrite, it doesn't. JRM · Talk 17:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Erwin is mistaken. There's no rule against recreating a speedied article with different content. As to the merit, she's notable enough with over 65,000 Google hits. That's more than Caressa Savage gets. NoPuzzleStranger 17:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually a contested speedy (and this one certainly was contestable) can be recreated with exactly the same content. The rule against recreation of deleted content doesn't apply to speedies for this reason--such articles should be taken to VfD unless they obviously fall under a CSD. The initial version of this article accurately described the porn star, thus providing ample context to enable the article to be extended, and asserted notability; it wasn't even remotely speediable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note Verifying the notoriety of porn stars via a standard google search is highly dubious. The vast majority (over 90%) will be spam or commercial sites, which demonstrate nothing. A more accurate method is to use the Image Search with filtering turned off. This results in about 350 hits for "Monique DeMoan" , not many. Comparatively, an image search for "Tower of London" returns 23,000; "The Beatles" returns 170,000.
• keep, 1.5% as notable as the Tower of London. Kappa 18:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) LOL.
• Delete. Notability of porn stars cannot be determined by Google. Google is inherently biased towards any internet-based phenomenon, and it seems safe to say that pornography is relatively internet based. --Scimitar ^parley 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. Why commercial sites should be ignored in counting Google hits I don't know, and why being an internet-based phenomenon means it should be deleted I don't know. If your point is that we should add more info on porn stars from the pre-internet era, I'm all for that. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • My point was that a prominent and notable person, such as Robert Countess, only gets 816 google hits because his field doesn't lend itself to internet sites, whereas a much less notable porn star, by virtue of her field of endeavor, recieves a misleadingly high amount of internet hits. Further proof of google's bias: Clement Kayishema gets 962 hits, while Melanchlaeni get 92. All are far more notable than Ms. Monique, so dont quote me google hits.--Scimitar ^parley 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • • Comment That's a very good point, Scimitar. The deMoan debate has, if nothing else, highlighted how widely good, well-meaning editors can disagree in assessing the notability of persons. A corollary to your excellent point about things that are popular on the net is the differing perception of notability in the things that one does. It has been repeatedly pointed by excellent commentators that the sentence "X is an American porn-star" itself establishes a basis for notability. Being a porn-star is felt to be notable, in and of itself. This is quite extraordinary, when one considers that none of the following sentences, for example, would be thought to indicate notability: "X is an American dermatologist," "X is a British lawyer," "X is a Japanese researcher," "X is a writer," "X is a chess player;" this last of course, being the prototypical CSD candidate. A one-sentence article containing any of the preceding would be immediate candidates for CSD (assuming for the purposes of discussion that X is simply an ordinary, regular member of his or her profession). However, an ordinary, completely unremarkable pornstar has apparently a firm claim to notability, and inclusion in an encyclopedia — simply by virtue of being a pornstar. Ie. we have, incredibly, elevated pornstars to the level of US presidents and senators. It doesn't matter if they are the most unremarkable, unnotable of their kind — they still get in.—Encephalon | ^ζ 23:19:17, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • I think this may be a confusion between what asserts notability and what establishes it. A claim that X is a porn star is an assertion of notability that (if a sanity check on google seems to confirm it) means the article can come to VfD where we decide whether or not notability is established. And that is something we decide by discussing amongst ourselves. An article about a US senator probably wouldn't end up on VfD; I expect we'd just say "speedy keep" and move on to the next item--not so with an article about a porn star. Monique DeMoan may or may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. That's what we're here to determine. She doesn't get an automatic "in" just for lying on her back and gargling sperm. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your thoughts, Tony. That's really the point I'm making: that being a pornstar is apparently an assertion of notability. Why is it? What is it about simply being a pornstar that automatically makes it an assertion of notability? This view supposes that pornstarhood is inherently a claim or assertion of notability. Yet if we follow the reasoning that merely being a member of the pornstar profession is a claim to notability, that leaves us with problems. Is "X is an accountant" an assertion of notability? What about "X is an epidemiologist"? You seem to be saying that if someone asserts they do something professionally, then they have asserted notability. If you are not saying that, then you are using some method of distinguishing the "notability merits" of professions that I am unfamiliar with. Because if "pornstar" is an automatic assertion of notability but "biologist" is not, how are you distinguishing them? I would find it difficult, if only because being, say, a neurosurgeon means being a member of a far smaller, far more selective group than being a pornstar. Yet if I wrote an article with only the sentence "X is an American neurosurgeon" here, it will be knocked out, almost certainly with CSD (assume X is a regular, ordinary neurosurgeon who when you google him has an office address and online CV). What are your criteria for distinguishing which professions are automatic assertions of notability? If they are WP criteria, Tony, I hope you can point them out to me, because I'd like to learn them to make sure my time on VfD is more usefully spent for my fellow Wikipedians. Finally, if you are not using distinguishing criteria but simply believe that "X is _____(profession)" automatically rules out CSD, since it is an assertion of notability, may I ask you to kindly consider where that leaves CSD A7? It would mean that all those A7s we've been passing, on articles like "X is a computer developer," are invalid. You appreciate the difficulty? Very kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 00:41:44, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
        • Well I fought this new CSD tooth and nail because it's very ambiguous. The wording was something like "bakers aren't notable but professors may be". I still thought that was ambiguous, and I believe I warned that in the event it did pass we'd have stub articles about professors being speedied instead of VfD'd (this is important in my country because professors are pretty rare--I know in some countries the title is handed around like sticks of chewing gum). And this is indeed what has happened--sysops on RC patrol are deleting stubs which could be expanded easily.
        • But we've got it and the compromise interpretation I've arrived at is that if I, a sysop who looks at the article, think a description of a profession amounts to an assertion of notability, then it is. Other sysops may look and see no such assertion. If there's doubt like this (eg: sysops in good faith deciding an article is deletable, and other sysops deciding it isn't) the policy is at least clear that the thing goes to VfD anyway. And I'm reasonably happy with that. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
          • • Actually, the proposal explicitly noted that "people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society." This certainly suggests that a person being an actor is a sufficient assertion of notability to demand a VFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:25, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
          • Tony: Participating in VfD has been a productive experience for me, and the main thing I've learned is that it's not straightforward. Many of the guidelines are sensible, but it is no less true that there are a few (it seems especially some newer ones) which offer conflicting interpretations. For example, WP:BIO, which I don't use when doing VfD, has arbitrary cut-offs that go against the spirit of WP:V; in some cases it is very illogical in its discrimination of professions. For example, an actor may merit inclusion in WP if he has starred in a commercial film that was seen by just 5000 people; a professional scientist on the other hand only merits inclusion if her "work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." So we have the ridiculous situation where the bar is set ludicrously low for one profession, and extremely high for another. The irony of course is that it is arguable that of the two professions, it is the latter that is intrinsically more notable even to begin with; it is certainly incomparably more selective.
          • Be that as it may, I do disagree with you wrt the CSD, especially in this particular case, Tony. There is nothing in the CSD that requires "X is a pornstar" to be interpreted as an automatic assertion of notability in and of itself. That's the reason it is difficult for us to provide a reason why "X is a pornstar" is an assertion of notability, but "X is a particle physicist" is not. In truth, in neither instance has the assertion standard been met. If the sentence was, "X is a legendary pornstar felt by many to be the greatest artist in adult movie making in the 1980s," yes, that is an assertion of notability. "X is a pornstar" simply isn't. The old deMoan "article" clearly qualified for CSD, and was validly deleted. (Equally, I think the recreation was valid). It is instructive to note the concluding sentences on notability on the WP:DVAIN page: ...For instance, if the person's profession is cited, a reasonable guideline would be how many people have the same profession: there are tens of thousands of porn models, but very few senators. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  12:01:30, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

• • • I apologize, I misread the second "Google" as "Wikipedia" for some reason. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
      • Your point being that once the Wikipedia hit is removed, he has even less "google notability"? Because as far as I can tell, that implies less google hits (wikipedia and mirrors), indicating exactly my point- that google is inherently biased in favor of internet based phenmoena.--Scimitar ^parley 21:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
        • No, my point being that I interpreted your point as being one about the bias of Wikipedia rather than the bias of Google; e.g. I read your point as being we are already too inclusive in this area, and need in some way to stem the flow. I don't dispute the point you actually made, obviously Google hit counts can be very inflated in instances like these. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
      • This rather overlooks the fact that Monique DeMoan has performed in principally VHS and DVD-based pornography, rather than website-based porn. In fact some of her most prolific years were immediately prior to the era of internet porn. Google is never much use for gauging the notability of anyone, it's just a useful sanity check. The large number of mainstream porn movies (rather than net-based shorts) that she has appeared in is a much better guide. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• And keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Gaa. Keep current incarnation. Zoe 23:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:BIO as an actress in commercially distributed work seen by an audience of 5,000 or more. Capitalistroadster 23:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. Why is someone who was a main actress in quite a few X-rated movies any less notable than someone who was an main actress in some PG-13-rated movies?--Prosfilaes 02:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the argument that this is a recreation of previously deleted material is false. Radiant_>|< 10:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually it's true. The earliest version of the current article is the version that was speedied [2]. Not that this is relevant to anything--it would be silly to vote to delete perfectly good articles just because somebody speedied them earlier. Every article has to start somewhere, and most start small. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Complainers should just let it go already. DreamGuy 12:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • After 6 straight keep votes, I think maybe they have.--Scimitar ^parley 14:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For better or worse, we have an extensive Category:Porn stars and this article, as rewritten, is comparable to all those others. -- Curps 18:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (again), verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The debate over this article shows that there is a serious dispute over just what people considers is a "notable" pornstar. This argument will keep resurfacing until a consensus is reached, so I'm offering a few facts to try to poke this debate into a consensus:

• A 60 Minutes segment on the porn industry noted that 70% of the women who start out as porn actresses survive only 1 movie.
• Is the individual somehow acknowledged for their work in some way other than the kinds of sexual acts she/he engages in? I ask this because if one were to detail the activities of these people, a lot of what they do in front of the camera either conforms to a job description from a resume/CV (e.g., "while working for this producer, I not only had sex with every man, woman or animal as the script demanded, but also convincingly expressed my satisfaction with that individual"), or resembles the typical Monday morning boastings of the previous weekend (e.g., "you won't believe how drunk/stoned/etc I got the other night"). Before someone accuses me of dismissing all people in this category, I would defend individuals like Linda Lovelace, Marilyn Chambers, Brandy Alexandre (pornstar), Sunset Thomas, & a few others as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. (Note: the Wikipedia article on Brandy Alexandre currently fails to even mention her significant 'Net career.)
• Can something worthwhile be said for the movies they appeared in? I ask this because whle some porno movies did have an effect on popular culture (Deep throat is a defensible example), can the same be said for, say, "Sleezy Lovin' Sisters #22"?

I mention all of this because this genre requires that we define specific criteria for inclusion that won't apply to other subjects. So far, it appears that no one has attempted to do just this. -- llywrch 23:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep . What else ? MutterErde 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC) (just wondering )
• Keep. Seems notable enough to me. I can't imagine the project that attempts to define any specific criteria for notability for porn. Perhaps somebody can take a stab at a porn equivilant to BEEFSTEW used for schools. David Henderson 05:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and for heaven's sake let this be the end of this. I can't believe someone opened another VfD over it, especially one citing that fiasco of a VfU as a reason. As others have said, that VfU should never have happened (and was never required) in the first place. Notability already seems to have been established above and in several previous discussions. Additionally, Erwin seems to be mistaken about the fashion in which this article was deleted, saying that it would "undermine the VfD process." To my knowledge, this article was never the subject of a successful VfD in any incarnation (but it was the subject of one botched one that appeared to be heavily leaning towards "keep"); therefore no outcome here could possibly undermine the VfD process. Aquillion 22:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Might I humbly suggest that this should be an end to star chambers where a sheep-vote is rendered as a rubber stamp on the summary deletion by a single person. Once undeleted, a disputed speedy can be seen, and edited, and submitted for deletion if necessary. VfD has been criticised of late, but it's not as tyrannous and anti-wiki as VFU, where votes are carried out concerning an article most people cannot see and nobody can edit during the vote. VfD and VFU should be amalgamated and no speedy deletion challenged by any administrator should ever remain deleted merely because its deletion has already been challenged by a non administrator. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:58, 20 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.