Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Marek

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 delete. All arguments to keep seem to revolve around ignoring the lack of reliable sources writing about this person... unfortunately that's not a good idea at all. W.marsh 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Marek

Anna Marek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Speedy deletion as recreated material was overturned at DRV since no one could find evidence of a prior AfD. So here it is now for full discussion. I reverted to the last version that looks like a biography (and have no opinion). ~ trialsanderrors 22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Problems with WP:PORN (which itself means problems with WP:BIO). Delete. B.Wind 03:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It looks alright to me, can you point out its deficiencies in the talk page? I'll see what I can do to fix it. She does have a substanstial fan-base and IMO this article is a lot better sourced than many of the porn star bios in Wikipedia. She was probably singled out for deletion because she is a lot more famous (or rather infamous) than most of them. Be that as it may, lets see what I can (in good faith). --Eqdoktor 08:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I undeleted the talk page, too, but it turned out it was only a replica of the article so I deleted it again. There was no discussion useful to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 10:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lack of reliable sources, single source seems somewhat partisan. --pgk 10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and source/cite. person seems notable, sources seem available to verify claims in article, thus, keep and cite.--Buridan 13:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The single provided source is highly unreliable. The burden is on you to cite whatever it is that you want to be cited. The closing administrator is not a magic citation machine. Uncle G 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I'm no expert on porn, but I do remember that most of the people I knew in the 90s who were into internet/BBS porn had pictures of her in their collection, so she must have been notable enough back then (otherwise I wouldn't even have remembered who she was). Not sure if she still is today. Mark Grant 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• I was wondering whether someone would finally try writing about this person. The problem with Anna Marek is that there is exactly one published source of biographical information about her in the whole world, an "Anna Marek FAQ" that has been pseudonymously posted and re-posted in Usenet newsgroups for about 10 years. It's the FAQ that has been copied onto the one web page that the article cites, and re-hashed on the other web page that the article cites. It possibly originates from the people who sell the movies. (Note that the web site onto which it has been copied also sells the movies.) There's no way to know who the author of the FAQ is, and for all that the world knows, all of the biographical information in the FAQ could be complete fiction. It wouldn't be the first time that a purported biography of a porn actress was utter fiction. (Indeed, fictional names and fictional biographies are common practice in the world of pornography.)

  The only verifiable things that can be said about this person that come from sources with a name and a known reputation is that she appears in four porn movies and that a Usenet newsgroup was named after one of her pseudonyms. Nothing else — her nationality, the fanciful story about her background, her sexual orientation, her weight, her height, and even her age and name (It is interesting to note that one editor's edit summary is "In Polish there is no name like 'Anuschka'".) — is verifiable from good sources that have checked their facts, that can be trusted, and that are independent of the subject and of people trying to sell the subject's movies. That's not enough to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria.

  Anna Marek is a good example of the distinction between fame and notability, and a rare example of someone who is famous but not notable. (Notability is not fame nor importance.) Many people have heard of her, but no-one apart from people who are (given that they invariably offer pictures and movies alongside the FAQ) trying to sell her movies has actually written and published a work of their own about her. Delete. Uncle G 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I disagree with the very notion of a 'famous but not notable' concept. Also, she has done more than four movies. She also did numerous photo sets, far more than four. MadMaxDog 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G - No reference to her beyond her work and those selling it means that in my opinion she fails WP:N. WJBscribe 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Eqdoktor - I find the argument of famous not notable very strange. She was everywhere on the early Internet in the early nineties. Hektor 23:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Her pictures were. But there's nothing at all written about her except for that one single FAQ. Eqdoktor has not addressed that, because (no discredit to xem) xe cannot address that. There is simply no independently sourced material to be had apart from the list of four movies and the newsgroup name. (If you assert otherwise, please point to the material.) That she is famous but not notable is odd to those that erroneously conflate notability and fame, but nonetheless it is true. Notability is not fame nor importance. And Anna Marek is one of the rare examples of someone who is famous, but not notable. Uncle G 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, we may not like what she does but that is not a reason to question her notability VaclavHav 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason to question notability is the one put forward above: she doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. The only person to mention disliking what she does has been you, and that is a straw man. If you think that she satisfies the WP:BIO criteria, please cite sources to demonstrate this. When you look for sources to cite you'll find solely this one Usenet-circulated FAQ of exceedingly dubious provenance. Uncle G 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I feel I should clarify. I have no objection to Anna Marek's profession and my vote is in my view objective. The article's references show that her movies are widely sold and heavily promoted. But it gives no external evidence that there is anything notable about Ms Marek as a porn star. Examples of this might be- best selling, longest career, first to perform a certain act, having a won a particular award, etc. Wikipedia cannot become an directory of all pornstars. Therefore, it must be necessary in establish that a pornstar is notable to show how he/she stands out from other pornstars... WJBscribe 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A lack of information on a notable topic is not a reason for deletion. And she is just as, or more notable as numerous other porn stars about which little is known except their sexual exploits in the erotic media, but still have articles on here. MadMaxDog 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This person is not notable. She is famous (inasmuch as people recognize her picture and her name). There's a difference. She doesn't satisfy our WP:BIO criteria. If she were notable, she would have been noted. But she hasn't been. There are no non-trivial published works from independent sources about her. No-one, that can be identified and trusted, has seen fit to actually document this person. If you think otherwise, please cite sources, as already requested above.

    On the contrary, a lack of information is a reason for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy which states that perpetual stubs with no possibility for expansion should be deleted. Because this person does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, in particular because she doesn't satisfy the primary criterion, there's no possibility for this article to be expanded beyond a stub. Note that editors have already had to add unverifiable content, such as her height and weight, and original research, such as the list of aliases, to the article, and have had to rely upon an unreliable source, just to get it as far as it is now.

    Put another way: You state that little is known about this person. In fact, pretty much nothing is known. Were you to ask the people who Mark Grant knew what they actually know about Anna Marek, they would report that they don't actually know anything about her at all, apart from the fact that that's the name on a set of pictures. Since an encyclopaedia is a compendium of knowledge, and there is no knowledge to be had, there can obviously be no encyclopaedia article. If you want to show otherwise, please point to where there is knowledge that has been researched, fact checked, and published by a source that, unlike the vendors of pornography (who make up biographies) can be trusted not to be making things up from whole cloth. Uncle G 13:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with your points. The very notion that she (whoever she was) was famous in her role as a porn star makes her notable enough for me. You may point to WP:BIO all you like - if there is a majority consensus amongst those people who do care enough to argue about it that she is notable - then she is. That is what Wikipedia, in the end, is about. MadMaxDog 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This also harkens back to the old inclusionist or exclusionist debate. Your thrust (beyond arguments about possibly fake info - which can easily be deleted or qualified as untrustworthy in the article) is that having an article listing a porn star about whom not much beyond her pornstardom is known is cheapening, worsening - whatever you would call it - Wikipedia. That is wrong. Wikipedia is not paper. Nobody will stumble over this article unless searching for it specifically or being random-linked to it. There is no harm to having it here. But then, that is what you'd argue. Oh well, sorry to all for veering off from the main topic. MadMaxDog 12:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• keep please the subject reads notable to me and is verifiable too Yuckfoo 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment for someone who is not notable she is generating a lot of talk. Hektor 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly per Ungle G. This article has been around since January 2005, and there are still no reliable sources. Mr Stephen 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This article could benefit from more information, but the historical significance of Anna Marek is undeniable. Moreover, the importance of the adult entertainment industry in terms of cultural enlightenment and economic advancement and the evolution of sexual morality can hardly be overstated: humans are sexual creatures perhaps unique in their ability to appreciate vicariously the sexuality of others, and similarly unique in their (arguably unethical) efforts to regulate human sexuality between consenting parties.

Prudishness has neither any rightful nor any desirable place among the qualities of an encyclopaedia: those opposing the presentation of reference material related to (especially mainstream) pornography ultimately undermine the scholarly discussion and fair representation of topics arising from (or substantially connected with) human sexuality and the greater portion of the human experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.127.35 (talk)

Sorry Mr. anonymous user but no one arguing against this article is being prudish. The question is simply whether the movies/pictures themselves and comments by those who promote them are sufficient for notability. I think those arguing against would have been satisfied by impartial external confirmation that "the historical significance of Anna Marek is undeniable" (as you put it) i.e. from sources other than those selling her work. No one to my knowledge has opposed the presentation of reference material relating to pornography, merely the quality of those references in this instance. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Uncle G. I have no problem with including notable porn stars, but I do have a problem with inadequate supporting references. WMMartin 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, in addition to the points raised by Uncle G, it is impossible to write an article that conforms to WP:LIVING without reliable sources. Chondrite 20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd like to make a couple of short points:

1. A.M. probably does not meet WP:PORN. I find its criteria somewhat too narrow, and, in particular, slanted against non-American porn stars (awards as a notability criteria); that's why I'd invoke WP:IAR here.
2. Notability is not fame nor importance? Mind you, this is porn we're talking about.
3. Verifiability of biographical data is not the issue. One could almost say A.M. is D.B. Cooper of porn. We know next to nothing about D.B. Cooper as a person (what is his real name, when was he born, etc.), but we know he existed, and we know what he did. Same for A.M. (No, I'm not saying this makes them equally notable; I'm just trying to provide a different angle here.) GregorB 21:44, 7 December 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.