Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Teen

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 was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiffany Teen

Article does not show some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety WP:NOT DXRAW 06:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A significant NN model, and perhaps one of the most popular. The article probably needs to be rewritten to establish importance, but I don't think deleting is the solution. Jeff Silvers 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. To clear up things this girl's real name is Robyn Bewersdorf. Google gives her about 241 unique hits. Most of those are spam or forum posts. The blog link is the most reliable thing I could find and most of those links mentioned in the blog are dead. —Mitaphane _talk 07:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well of course you'll get less hits if you use her actual name rather than her more well-known pseudonym. Jeff Silvers 08:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is true. "Tiffany Teen" does get 1.5 Mil un-unique google hits. But this article is a bio, thus WP:BIO is a good gauge about how to handle this person. Going through google hits on "Tiffany Teen" just results in a lot of spam and porn sites, nothing consider reliable. In fact, a reliable source for a biography should at minimum have the girl's real name. Considering the most reliable thing I could find is one blog with the name( and a bunch of dead links) suggests that reliable source will be close to immpossible to find. No reliable sources mean there's no way to verify the information. —Mitaphane _talk 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn model. Eusebeus 09:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Unreferenced, doesn't meet WP:BIO and wouldn't even meet the not-yet-official WP:PORN BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced and no evidence she meets WP:BIO. -- Merope ^Talk 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable person failing to meet WP:BIO. Valrith 21:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete On the one hand, I have heard of her (and probably have a pic or two saved to my HDD), on the other, her website lasted only two years, and if we had a page for every minor person involved in the porn industry, Wikipedia's article count would double at least. Resolute 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above comments. She is quite attractive but fails our verifiability tests. Yamaguchi先生 23:39, 9 October 2006
• Delete there is nothing of interest in this article, which seems to consist mainly of an analysis of her photoshoots. Consider that even Kate Ground, whose article is far more informative than this, is on the verge of deletion.
• Delete too minor, if she's no longer "working" then I doubt her article will be missed. James086 02:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What is with this strong anti-non mainstream porn bias on wikipedia? DXRAW has a axe to grind [1] this actress hit 3000 on alexia [2], in case you all forgot WP:GT. Let see Merope has another bias, [3] [4], also Eusebeus [5] [6] [7], next Andrew Lenahan [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], next Valrith [16] [17] [18].Patcat88 03:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Three things. One, the search engine test page you refer to explicitly states this: "The simple Google test by number of hits is not applicable to people or titles within a number of internet-based businesses, notably (but by no means restricted to) pornography." So your Google and Alexia ratings are invalid. Second, Andrew Lenahan wasn't the person who put Mistress Yvette up for AFD, I was, and I'm far from an anti-porn crusader (hint: take a look at the participants list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars). Thirdly, as someone said elsewhere on Wikipedia, "We are trying to make Wikipedia a reputable encyclopedia, not an exciting editorial", which brings us right back to the question of whether these people deserve mention in Wikipedia, which is why we have AFD procedures. Tabercil 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Arbusto 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Just because something doesn't meet the specific line items of WP:BIO doesn't mean it should automatically be bounced. The article needs considerable work for sure, but I think there's enough there to warrant an article. Give it a little time and if the changes aren't made post it to AfD again. Lord Rasputin 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Porn in a different animal than any other aspect of the entertainment industry. According to Forbes magazine, Americans alone spend from $6 billion to $10 billion on porn [19]. With these kind of numbers, there's a conspicuously lack of mainstream media coverage on specific porn personalities, despite the gigantic popularity of porn. How many people openly admit to consuming porn? I think most will agree that it's not as many that admit to seeing A Prairie Home Companion, which grossed just over $20 million. Most just don't admit to it [20]. Even though a google search for "Tiffany Teen" will bring up over 1.4 million hits, Entertainment Tonight won't be profiling her. Just because the "typical" media outlets don't write about her, doesn't at all mean she's invisible or nn. --Marriedtofilm 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • She's not even notable within her niche... Valrith 02:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • How would you know that? Are you that familiar with the Non-nude photography niche? --Marriedtofilm 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Notability isn't the direct issue here; it is verifiability. Notability (WP:BIO) isn't a criteria on which to delete but a gauge to determine whether the subject's notability is high enough that reliable sources exist (so that WP:V & WP:OR aren't violated). With out any external sources, how are we suppose to know any of the information is factually correct? —Mitaphane _talk 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree. It's just with this genre, a "reliable source" is hard to come by as most mainstream journalistic outlets generally don't report on specific personalities. That's why my vote included a "weak". In porn, we just can't always verify notability even if notability exists. I'll look for proper articles, but I'm not keeping my fingers crossed that I'll find any. --Marriedtofilm 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • You must understand, though, that as an encyclopedia our scope is limited to what can be verified by reliable sources. If you're pretty sure she's popular but can't find sources saying so (because people won't admit it, according to your logic), then sorry but that's not good enough. The same argument could be used to insert all sorts of ludicrous stuff into Wikipedia: "I'm pretty sure lots of people secretly keep unicorns as pets, but I can't find any sources because nobody's willing to admit it." etc. Hopefully you understand why we strongly demand reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
            • According to WP:PORNBIO one qualifying criteria is: "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through adult film industry news or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets." The paragraph about Tiffany Teen in the mainstream Wired News reference seems to be such a news piece. That article is even cited in the Wikipedia article Internet child modeling and so far nobody there has contested that article as unreliable.--Marriedtofilm 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Take note of the wording: "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece". Not mentioned in. There's a big difference between the two, and Tiffany is NOT the subject of that Wired article. Valrith 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                • It doesn't have the qualifier "primary" to "subject of" the news piece. It was already established that the reference to Tiffany Teen is brief. The primary subject is internet teen porn and it cites the Tiffany Teen subject as a controversial example. --Marriedtofilm 22:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                • I had a look at the Wired article. While it would be a great reference for a general article about sites of this type, it only mentions Tiffany once (bizarrely, the one fact about her it does verify, about a $75 video, isn't in Tiffany's article!). The facts that are in the Tiffany article are absolutely not backed up by this reference. If we cut the article down to what is verifiable based on the Wired mention, the article would be about 8 words long. You can see why more coverage than that is needed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • It is true that the Wired article does not verify a majority of this article (as commented below). It does verify that this subject is controversial and was worth a citation in the Wired article. I won't value it any more than for what it is. I do agree that if this article stays (I doubt it by these votes), as strictly verifiable by WP:BIO guidlines, it should probably be no more than a couple of sentences. --Marriedtofilm 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • I agree wholeheartedly. However, I would also say that an article which can only ever have one or two sentences worth of verifiable information is a prime example of an article which should not be part of an encyclopedia... or, at the very least, is a topic better covered in a another article rather than its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I added one reference which briefly describes Tiffany Teen deep in the article. The source is very reliable (Wired News) but it doesn't verify most of details in the article so I kept the references tag. Take this info for what it's worth. --Marriedtofilm 05:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if not the, atleast one of the most famous non nude models on the Internet. bbx 10:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in light of comments made by Marriedtofilm, albeit a somewhat weak motion to do so. Yamaguchi先生 20:12, 14 October 2006
• Keep per Marriedtofilm, good Alexa ranking and the 1,540,000 Google hits. Prolog 06:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ik!
• Keep Ik! i searched for her and i find this article, is useful.

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.