Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Door Nikki

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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next Door Nikki

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished data. The web page itself must therefore be a reliable source. - Ste4k, 23 June 2006 13:25

• I don't understand this nomination -- is it based on a claim of non-verifiability? Google her name and see what comes up. Also, you can verify as much as you like for $9.95 / month. If the claim here is not verifiable, then my vote is keep. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  ^{23 June 2006 14:24} Ste4k wrote: A google search was perfomed, the result revealed that most references were being used to attract search engines. Many others were from the same company which owns the site being used as the sole resource in the article. The subject is an advertisment masquerading as an article. There are no reputible sources for this facade. You may also verify a prostitute for $9.95/month, cheap" by comparison to others, and equally notable.

• Alexa rating of 3008. That's 1400 higher than DemocraticUnderground.com (4403) and a whopping 3200 higher than RateMyProfessors.com (6253), both of which have extensive articles on Wikipedia. The current article lacks points of reference, true, but that just means that someone needs to take the time and find them. They've got to be out there somewhere. Sub-par article? Yes. Reasonable for Wikipedia anyway? Maybe. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

^{23 June 2006 15:00} Ste4k wrote:I appreciate you seeing my point that this person has no notability because sources are out there somewhere but where exactly remains unknown even to you. I also agree with you that a topic should have some research done before it is considered important enough for our fine encyclopedia. I'm very happy that you provided further evidence here in this discussion that the topic is unverifiable. Thanks! :)

Hey there pal, cut back on the biting, huh? I don't really care one way or the other about this article, so I'm rescinding my above vote. But I don't see how giving the Alexa rating of c. 3000 makes it non-notable, and I don't see how saying that you have to pay to verify it (just like you have to buy a book to verify its contents) makes it unverifiable. In any case, cut down on your sarcasm, buddy. This article is not worth it. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

^{23 June 2006 15:27} Ste4k wrote: Perhaps you are applying an incorrect tone to my voice. All of my comments are genuine. I do, however, consider the words "buddy" and "pal" to be inappropriate. Per the notion you raised, though, just as you point out, verifiability has nothing to do with whether a source needs be purchased. Keep in mind that this was your own point and that mine was one based strictly on verifiability. Thank you.

I apologize if my vocabulary offended you. As I use that kind of language (as I always have, and as everyone I know uses it) it's used simply as a method to casualize the tone of a conversation. No disrespect of any kind intended. On the other hand, you have been reading all sorts of things into my arguments that I have not been saying. But I'm going to leave it at that, because this article is not worth a war to me. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

^{23 June 2006 16:06} Ste4k wrote: I forgive you and it is forgotten. This is the very first time I have been in an AFD debate as I have only been on Wikipedia for about one week. Please accept my apologies for not being better versed in this genre. Thank you.

• Delete. non-notable pornsite girl. Fails Google test: most entries that came up were pornspam. wikipediatrix 14:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - There are so many of these sites/women. Clearly not all of them are notable. Wickethewok 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CheNuevara. High Alexa rating, obviously verifiable. I agree with wikipediatrix that many of the google hits are spam, but with 1.4 million of them, it is beyond my ability to sort out which is which. It's apparently a very well-known site. bikeable (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  ^{23 June 2006 15:46} Ste4k wrote: Given Alexa's limitations, the use of Alexa as a factor to determine the notability or traffic patterns of a pornographic performer's or company's website is not subjective of all Internet users. (Traffic logs of the site's servers, on the other hand, would be a far more accurate tool, but the use of traffic logs would constitute original research.) Per the Google hits, though, even though 1.4 million are claimed to be found, less than one-thousand are demonstrably listed. It should be noted that Google has a financial interest in making claims about large volumes of material with short access times. Thanks!

Yes, but note that google counts are inaccurate for numbers this large, and the number of "unique" is fairly meaningless (Nikki would appear to have twice as many as Microsoft!). From Wikipedia:Search engine test, Further, Google's list of unique results is constructed by first selecting the top 1000 results and then eliminating duplicates without replacements. Hence the list of unique results will always contain less than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms. For example, from the about 742 million pages related to "Microsoft", Google presently returns 552 "unique" results (as of Jan 9, 2006). bikeable (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

^{23 June 2006 18:50} Ste4k wrote:The article under discussion here is already ambigous per it's name. The topic "Next Door Nikki" is the name of a web site and also the pseudonym for an actress. If the article's focus were primarily about the web site, then the statistics of it's listings might be viable for discussion. On the other hand, if the topic of the article is the actress herself, the 1.4 million sources diminishes to only one. We are all aware of the unreliability of any single self-published resource on the web. Thanks.

• I am recasting a vote, this time provisional keep. My original vote was based on a claim of verifiability, which I don't see to be at issue here anymore. Therefore I vote to keep the article provided that the article can be improved to the subject reasonable notability in a way more than an advertisement. If it survives this vote, and comes up again later without any significant changes, I will vote to delete. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as porn/spam without any particularly defining characteristics. I can support keeping a notable and unusual porn star like (say) Linda Lovelace, but there really doesn't seem to be a lot to say about this one. Ignore the Google and Alexa results - as Ste4k points out, porn sites often make use of SEO techniques, so search results for porn-related topics are only really valid in determining non-notability through a lack of results. Zetawoof^(ζ) 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zetawoof.--Peta 16:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Zetawoof said it all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable pornstar, Google/Alexa results not valid as said earlier. Advanced 19:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:SPAM, WP:BIO, and WP:PORN BIO. --Coredesat 20:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ignoring that the article is in a current state of disrepair, the question is: is this topic notable enough to be deserving of an article? Based on anything there is to be found (admitting that I failed to open most websites returned as very few seemed to be informative in the desired way), I would say that there is no distinguishing characteristic here to make Nikki worthy of an article, and a lack of reliable sources from which to construct an article. Combine this with a fuzziness as to whether or not appropriate WP guidelines (e.g., WP:PORN BIO) are met and I can't find any good reason to keep this. GassyGuy 21:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat's reasoning above; I couldn't have put it better myself! --Wisden17 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable per Alexa and notable within the growing genre of Web models. As I keep saying WP:PORN BIO and WP:PORN are not guidelines nor policy. They are simply proposed and they shouldn't be treated as letter of the law until they are declared as such. 23skidoo 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's already been made clear that Alexa is unreliable in cases like this. --Coredesat 22:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Please note that notibility is not a criteria for deletion, but importance is. So the question should be "is this article important enough". CSD A1 Eagle talk 04:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment ^{24 June 2006 07:05} Ste4k wrote: Notability is a criterion for verification. It establishes whether or not the subject of the article is important enough. And it may address the reliability of the source which is being used to verify the content we allow in the article. Basically anything said in the article must also be stated by a reliable source and notability is one possible way of determining that reliability. It does not matter here if the actress is very notable by the number of times Google is requested to supply information. Regardless of whether or not that determines a number of actual people, if there isn't anything published by a reliable source about the actress, then the information about her is simply unreliable. In this specific case, I maintain that the web site that is being used to source the information about the actress is an unreliable source of information for two specific reasons. The web site itself hasn't any notability and it is self serving financially to be providing any data about whom it has hired. Therefore if the subject of the article is the actress then we haven't any reliable source. Also per verifiability that source is the only source available. The ambiguity of the matter itself serves to show that regardless of how many hits or ratings are performed, nobody can determine if it is the site or the actress that is being counted. Certainly one might say here, the people are supplying hits for both together. But if that is the case, then there is no source for the article at all. And in the final analysis, the actress is not quotable as a source for herself, or for the site. Logically and reasonably here, then, notability is key in understanding the basis for deletion. Hope you had a cup of coffee before you decided to read all of that. Thanks Eagle_101!
• Delete - fails WP:BIO and I don't think Wikipedia should be a place for porn star bio (in most situation) anyways. --WinHunter ^(talk) 06:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, same kind of article could be written about any one of a few hundred thousand similar NN websites. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. When dealing with Internet models, it should be noted that notability is elusive. Therefore, the bar is set higher when it comes to these models, given the near viral nature of Internet information and content. Obviously, "Next Door Nikki" doesn't stand out much from the pack in terms of WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely High Keep. First of all, you're missing the point here, Next Door Nikki is NOT a pornstar, so of course she is not going to fall under any of the requirements for pornstars. Second, she is arguably one of the most famous NN models EVER. She ranks 3,008 on Alexa.com, thats very high. That ranking is also higher than Kate's Playground, and she has a nice long article. I can't believe this article is even being considered for deletion.--Letsgomets1212 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's already been determined that Alexa ratings are invalid for porn stars. Which she is, more or less... just in the first few pages of Google hits for the phrase "next door nikki", I can see:
    • "Next Door Nikki turns the heat up in this monster of a gallery! ... She's just 18, and hot enough to make it into our galleries!"
    • "She's smoking hot and got some huge boobies!"
    • "Next Door Nikki Topless On Couch Video"
    • "Next Door Nikki - Porn Resource Site Review Of NextDoorNikki"

  and the home page makes it pretty clear that titillation is the purpose of the site. It may not be pornography by the strictest definition, but it's close enough. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "Second, she is arguably one of the most famous NN models EVER" ... does this count as a claim to notability? :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• ^{25 June 2006 22:47} Ste4k wrote:I hadn't voted yet, but only discussed the matter, but since I was the one that nominated the article for deletion, here is my point: This has nothing to with whomever you are speaking about. When you can tell me what her name is and prove it by notable cited resources, then at least we will have a single fact. This is also not about a web site. This is about ambiguity as well as policy. Here is the exact reason that the article was nominated: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished data. The web page itself must therefore be a reliable source. If you cannot argue against that, then you have missed the point. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Thanks!
• Here's my argument, why does Tiffany Teen have such a long article. Why is she notable? Its because she was immensely popular, just like Nikki.Letsgomets1212 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not some other non-related article is or is not notable is clearly a different matter. If you believe however, as you point out, that there is doubt to that other person's notability, then per the written policy at this time you should nominate that article for deletion on the same grounds. You mention the reason for the answer to notability as "immensely popular". The question then becomes simple. Is there a reptutible source that states this? Because if we here use Google and Alexa, then we are ourselves in this discussion committing acts of original research. Ste4k 07:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• You people have no lives. Who cares?! She is obviously popular. Alexa and Google are not original research, they are places that show a site is popular based on ranking. What source could I find? So what your telling me is if i can find a source that states she popular, that would be credible? I don't think so. This website is an encyclopedia. It is meant to give people information on as many topics as possible. Are you going to lose sleep knowing that ONE article is on Wikipedia that you believe shouldn't be? Instead of deleting the article, someone with a knowledge of her should come in and write something decent. Let's face it, there is no credible source that can tell you if someone is popular or not. In my opinion, Alexa is a great resource for popularity. The #3,025 website in the world is not to shabby for a internet NN model, hmmm, maybe she is notable? Besides, there are few articles on here for teen models, a few notable ones should be kept.-Letsgomets1212 15:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I didn't think that nominating this article for cleanup would lead to this, but the article contains no credible or relevent information. As it stands, there are a lot of other small time porn sites like this I could create articles for, but won't as they are simply not notable enough. Superwad 05:42, 26 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.