Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique deMoan

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 Regardless of whether the speedy deletion was valid, this VFD is about a wholly different article, so the arguments used here aren't particularly valid. Keep. If people assert she's not notable, please start a fresh discussion. Radiant_>|< 13:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monique deMoan and Monique deMoan/Temp

Originally speedied by Lucky 6.9, it was recreated. No notability established (though the author says the word "notable" does so). ral315 22:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the rewrite at Monique deMoan/Temp contains no material from the original speedied article. All content has been authored by me. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy redelete. Adding one word to an article does not escape the "substantially identical" CSD, and this article is currently on VfU with near unanimous keep deleted's. This article's creation is a WP:POINT. -Splash 22:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Clearly, Tony's done a decent job of writing up a filmography. I've little further interest in the notability or otherwise of a porn actress so I'll retract my deletion vote, although that act does not constitute a keep vote. My votes at VfU stand until the conclusion of both the VfU and this VfD. -Splash 02:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  It's not substantially identical since the original was speedied on the basis that it didn't assert notability, and this has been changed now. Or else just what would be an assertion of notability for a porn star who is simply notable for her porn? NoPuzzleStranger 22:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  The fact remains that you have only created this 'article' because you're losing the vote at VfU. It is an experiment to prove some sort of a point, and is a WP:POINT as a result. Moreover, you have repeatedly removed the speedy tag from the article: something that you should not do. If you care so strongly about this article: {{sofixit}}. -Splash 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  Sorry but I really don't see what this has got to do with WP:POINT. I also wonder why he bothered listing the article on VFU, since it had never been VfD'd in the first place. It was just the usual bad speedy, the kind of collateral damage that does happen now and then but is easily fixed. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  The WP:POINT was obviously that the addition of the single word "notable" was an assertion of notability, when the VfU discussion was clearly in opposition to the undeletion of the article on A7 grounds. The recreation at an alternative capitalization with practically the same content is gaming the system, and falls under the same ambit. Had the author just behaved properly when the vote went against him/her, this just wouldn't have happened: alternatively, the good sense to {{sofixit}} might have helped considerably, but it took multiple deletions, undeletions, blocks, unblocks, messages and AN/I before anyone got around to that, and did it in the proper way with a /temp page. -Splash 02:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand accordingly. Notable peformer in her genre. 23skidoo 02:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. As per Splash and entry history "you have repeatedly removed the speedy tag from the article". --GraemeL 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted and protected. Also Monique DeMoan. <removed personal attack> NoPuzzleStranger has been blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly recreating them. Zoe 23:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The above "removed personal attack" is a removal of {{vandal}}. Whether implicitly calling someone a vandal is a personal attack or a comment on behaviour is left for the reader to decide. JRM · Talk 00:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• You can't enforce a speedy--much less a patently invalid speedy, in this way. I've restored the speedied article and will unblock this editor. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Zoe, don't do that again. NoPuzzleStranger 00:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: She has something like 80 videos listed on IMDB.com [1] so in normal circumstances she would survive a Vfd. This also demonstrates that she's got an audience of more than 5,000 people and passes WP:BIO. Speedy deletion criterion A7 was supposed to remove uncontroversially non-notable people - if it doesn't apply to a band (that proposal failed) why should it apply to a porn star? Kappa 00:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  "She has something like 80 videos listed on IMDB.com [2] so in normal circumstances she would survive a Vfd." Could you point me to precedent nominations of porn stars where such numbers were quoted as relevant? Please do note I am explicitly asking for porn stars, not just actors, unless you wish to argue the same criteria clearly apply to both categories. JRM · Talk 00:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  Update: my inquiry stands, despite Capitalistroadster's comment below. I really would like to know about prior nominations of porn actors, if any. If your comment referred only to actors in general and you don't know any porn actor nominations in particular, that's fine too; please clarify in that case. JRM · Talk 01:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  One I remember is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nautica Thorn. Kappa 01:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  Thank you. You see, Nautica Thorn would definitely qualify as notable in my book. To me this indicates the guidelines are lacking when it comes to determining what porn actors and actresses are notable. The present one seems to imply they're all notable. But while that's fine if you are of the viewpoint nearly every person on Earth is notable anyway (or "worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia", if you will) it seems quite uneven to use the guideline in singling out porn actors this way. I doubt anyone would argue there's not a difference between porn actors and actors in just about any other genre in this regard, but if I'm wrong, I'd like to have that spelled out at WP:BIO. JRM · Talk 01:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Immediate delete; kindly specify how this article is not speedyable material? Erwin Walsh
  • Because someone added the adjective "notable" to it. Meaning that by that logic, of course, an article reading Jimmy Lugnut is a notable student at BFN Junior High couldn't be speedily deleted, as it is a patently invalid speedy. --Calton | Talk 00:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

    Nonsense. A student is not notable as a student except for very few rare cases, which would have to be explained. But is it very common for an actor to be notable for simply being an actor and having a minimum name recognition, but there may be no practical way to demonstrate that in an article. Here on VfD we can point to Google counts and other metrics which would be unencyclopedic in the article itself. NoPuzzleStranger 01:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Someone -- more than one, it looks like -- needs to read WP:Point. --Calton | Talk 00:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• I've expanded this article a bit to stop these silly speedy delete games. Now someone who has appeared in movies enjoyed by many people over a period of more than ten years really can't be written off under CSD 7, and the article is not longer a substub. You'll just have to discuss in on VfD. Goodness knows why it was speedied in the first place. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  If I were to guess, it was probably because it read "American porn-star who entered the business in 1993." Then, of course, NoPuzzleStranger changed it to "Notable American porn-star who entered the business in 1993." In light of this I can at least have some understanding of why some people might have thought it was a speedy. JRM · Talk 00:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry but I don't see how *either* version is remotely speediable--unless the admin in question had done his research and honestly failed to find the copious entries concerning this porn actress. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

    I don't think it works that way for any speedy. WP:CSD explicitly talks only about the content of articles, not about their topics. The criterion under which this article was deleted reads "an article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" (and follows this up with the reason why we're here: "if the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead"). It seems hard to argue that the article "asserted that person's importance or significance", unless you want to agree with NoPuzzleStranger that adding "notable" is such an assertion. (Grammatically speaking he's completely right, of course.) If you want to argue administrators additionally have the requirement of checking whether the article doesn't happen to ineffectively talk about a notable person who's significance is not established before speedying: I can't see anything in any policy anywhere where that is even implied. If you want to hold administrators responsible this way, I suggest amending policy to make this more explicit. I will agree with you that continuing to speedy an article despite objections is a bad idea, but I cannot agree with you that the original speedies where as baseless as you seem to suggest they were. JRM · Talk 01:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • No matter what the CSD's say, we don't expect our administrators to act blindly and delete perfectly good articles on the basis of content--at least I don't. Obviously this was a VfD candidate from the first, asserting as it did that the person named was an American porn star. The way to remove doubt would have been to type her name into google and see if anything comes out--if it doesn't, then it's a clearly spurious claim and can be speedied; otherwise some discussion may be required.
  • I'm sorry that you don't seem to see anywhere in policy that says administrators are expected to be persons of generally good judgement. Maybe we should add something to that effect to our policy, though of course it would be superfluous because obviously we all are, so we don't usually go around blindly deleting articles on the basis that if we squint a bit we can pretend that the subjects aren't pretty famous people. But we all make mistakes. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

    Rational continuation of this argument seems pointless. You clearly believe administrators cannot delete articles (or ought not, at least) unless they first make a good attempt at establishing the notability of their subjects, and failing. I do not. The remainder of the straw man arguments and hyperbole are not worth addressing. I understand your point perfectly well, Tony. No need to give it an ironic, or even sarcastic edge. JRM · Talk 02:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry that you thought I was being sarcastic. I do sincerely believe that we're all capable of being good administrators. I don't think that ever involves deleting articles that say stuff like "X is a porn star" without even checking on google. The claim that a person is a porn star is a claim of notability (porn is mass distributed and so thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands of people may be exposed to the attributed work of a person who works in that industry). Now if I wrote an article "Meritanio Gonzalez is a porn star" you would obviously want to know if this were a likely claim. But it's easy enough to check it. I have done RC patrol myself, it just doesn't make sense to blindly delete stuff because a lot of it turns out to be easily verifiable and if you delete it you've just deleted something that can be made into a good stub in a few seconds. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

    Ah, now I see where the argument lies. You consider porn stars (existing ones, obviously) to be notable because porn is mass distributed. I find myself holding the exact opposite opinion: I'd expect that so many porn movies are made and so many porn actors hired that individual ones need to have good claims to fame. Now I also see why you must have thought me a bit of an idiot to belabor the point: you would consider the assertion "X is a porn star" to be a good claim of notability and thus not something you could apply the speedy criterion to; I'd consider it insufficient. This seems like a pretty serious discrepancy, though. We should definitely try to get some consensus on the issue outside this individual case. I'd imagine we're not the only two people representing either side. JRM · Talk 03:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As per WP:BIO. It refers to actors who appear in commercially distributed films with audiences of more than 5,000. She qualifies under this criteria easily. It does not specify that people who appear in a particular genre of film should be excluded. Mind you, this does not mean that articles that do not assert notability should not be deleted as per the particular guideline. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC).

  I'd be inclined to agree with you. It seems nobody ever raised the issue of whether the criterion was appropriate for mass-produced genres like pornography, so I've taken the liberty of doing just that. JRM · Talk 01:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Monique deMoan/Temp and move to Monique deMoan, deleting the original. I am the author of the new article and, all content is my original work. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to uphold the principle that the previous vote matters. Jonathunder 01:41, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Which previous vote was that? Kappa 01:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a very good question. There was no previous VfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Without, hopefully, talking out of turn, it seems pretty clear to me Jonathunder might be referring to the (two) VfUs on the matter. It's likewise equally clear that Kappa and Tony are disputing they're relevant to the VfD. Do you think I feel stupid for pointing out these things? Man, you better believe it. But it's better than refusing to "aid and abet" the "opposition", so to speak. JRM · Talk 02:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The VfU vote presumably. <after an edit conflict>-Splash 02:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, VFU is a place where people are supposed to go to appeal bad deletions. It isn't VfD, it has no power to mandate deletion, only to recommend undeletion. I'm grateful to my fellow administrators for permitting this VfD, finally, to continue. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the /Temp version, so long as somebody goes in and italicizes all of those titles. Zoe 02:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done. vi is a very powerful little thing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep temp and move to Monique DeMoan (capital D is correct). NoPuzzleStranger 02:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. My keep stands, but either spelling is okay with me so if it will help consensus I agree to move to that spelling. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. A notability vote and an unclear one at that. The last one I participated in was daring enough. No vote. To recap my opinions on the matters that inadvertently trickled over here: I believe the original speedy was perfectly fine, I believe NoPuzzleStranger's actions were unproductive, and I'm glad Tony Sidaway is more interested in expanding the encyclopedia than belaboring a technical point—which I'm perfectly willing and unashamed to declare myself guilty of in this particular case. JRM · Talk 02:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet again another county has been heard from that felt they had to muddy the waters. The original article has now been once again undeleted. I will not redelete it. But I want to make it abundantly clear: DELETE the original article. Zoe 03:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• • I won't push this and I hope you won't take the suggestion amiss, but in this case would a history merge be appropriate in your opinion? Just say no if you oppose and I'll forget the idea. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems verifiable. - SimonP 03:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the new version; 11 years in the business with that many credits would seem to establish notability. And for heaven's sake unprotect it--why is it still protected? Aquillion 03:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 80 videos is not necessarily notable. This could be a month and a half of work over 11 years with 40 compilation videos. I mean, married couples have more sex than that. And, I admit to not being a no-it-all when it comes to this subject, but I would have thought I would have heard of her at some point. --Noitall 04:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To maintain integrity of CsD, VfU, and VfD. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have a lot of articles on pornstars. It seems to me that the burden ought to be on those in favor of deletion to explain why she is not notable - the presumption is, I think, in favor of notability for porn stars. john k 05:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Extreme Holly where 3/5 or 60% of the voters disagreed with that. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Extreme Holly was kept; there was no consensus to delete. And that porn star didn't even have any imdb entry. She worked solely from her website. The bar for porn stars is evidently fairly low. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Closer inspection will reveal that the two "keep" voters quoted the same links as "notable", and that the addition of a single delete voter would have resulted in deletion. Thus demonstrating that there is no current consensus, and that both User:John Kenney's and your comments are not representative of any facts in evidence. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • See above: that there was no consensus was my point. Recall that a minute ago you cited the "three-fifths" as a significant result--now you've just as good as admitted that if a single delete voter had gone the other way there was have been three-fifths in the other direction. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Please see talk page. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If imdb is a criteria, it should not matter what type of film they are in. If the type of film listed on imdb affects the vote, then something is wrong. Vegaswikian 06:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Highly notable and the speedy delete team protecting the page as a nonentity was clearly way out of policy here. DreamGuy 06:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Using a VFU debate about a substub as a reason to delete an article which is not a substub makes no sense to me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 15 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.