Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Carrera

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asia Carrera

This article is not verifiable, and is therefore in conflict with WP:V. I know this woman exists, and I've seen her in porn videos, but other than that, there's no reliable information about her. From WP:V: "The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." We don't even know her birth name for sure. In the article, it's listed as "Jessica Andrea Steinhauser," but on her website she says that her father is Japanese and her mother is German. If her parents were as strict and traditional as she says, she'd have a Japanese last name. That discrepancy makes me doubt Asia herself as a reliable source. This is definitely not the only discrepancy in her biographical information. Without WP:RS, we can't have an article. I'm not objecting to how she became famous (porn), I'm objecting to the lack of reliable sources and the impossibility of verification. Should porn star articles be held to a lower or different standard of verifiability than articles on other living people? I don't think so. Erik the Rude 17:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiable sources can be found such as imdb.com. Also this would not be the first person with disputed birthdate and name. Many people from before the 18th century have dubious birthdates. Should we delete Christopher Columbus because we are not sure when or where he was born? Joelito 17:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database contradicts itself on Asia Carrera, and is therefore not a reliable source. I don't see what Christopher Columbus has to do with this. He has reliable sources. Erik the Rude 17:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he doesn't. Columbus has (partly conflicting) information in various unofficial and "official" (but not edited or peer-reviewed) documents. They qualify as "the most reliable sources available" and can be cited as such, but we don't treat them as absolute proof. IMDB, on the other hand, can have unverified information inserted by actors or wannabees or fans, so we treat it as just another pointer to possible information, whether self-contradictory or not. Barno 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep To the extent of verifying a porn actress' real name, they should be held to a slightly lower standard of verifiability than someone not in that... industry. Anonymity is part and parcel of being in porn, and the stage name is more important for their work in any case, but like the Venerable Bede. Furthermore, in the United States children of Asian immigrants often have a non-Asian last name- whether matrilinearly acquired or invented- because of perceptions that it would reduce prejudice when interacting with government. Furthermore, the article itself cites IMDB as well as her personal website as sources, and her ethnic background is (tangentially) discussed in this article from the SFGate. At any rate, there is information in the article that is a matter of public record (her marriage, for instance), and whatever controversy there might be over her name is not grounds for deleting the entire article. If you want to point out some things that you see as discrepancies in her self-provided information, I'd recommend pointing them out in cleanup or someplace other than AfD. Captainktainer 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep don't think possibly incorrect information is a good reason to delete an article. If its incorrect fix it or add verify tags, don't send it to AFD. The subject is obviously notable. (plus to some it might smell of censorship) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I know I smell something... Fagstein 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep beat it down to a substub but I'm sure there is some verifiable stuff. I don't really care about her real name. I wonder if she still reads HardOCP. Kotepho 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Beat it down. Fagstein 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, one of the five most notable people in her field, has sustained this status for years. Plenty of verifiable media coverage can be found. Porn stars' real names are not crucial to proper encyclopedic coverage, and (as in the Jordan Capri controversy in these pages) could cause their own troubles even if verified. Barno 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Beyond that, as far as I see so far, I'm the only editor signing a comment with anything other than a pseudonym, which is ironic in this conversation. RGTraynor 19:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I use my real surname. I only display naked opinions online, not naked flesh, and I don't think these comments will draw obsessed stalkers. Aren't you afraid of overeager fans of Dick Traynor's NASCAR Modified racing from the 1980s (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York) mistaking you for him? Barno 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, nor from fans of the Robert Traynor who's an English soccer striker, nor from the bit actor of that name, and I'm probably safe from crazed fans of my (90-year-old) eponymous grandfather as well. Life's too short. RGTraynor 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Although the issues of verifiability are interesting, IMHO they pertain more to page content, not whether or not she deserves an entry. --Lockley 20:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as obviously notable individual, only a content dispute. VegaDark 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All I can say is "huh?" Danny Lilithborne 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, reluctantly. Fagstein 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, absolutely must keep. This biographical data dispute is no more remarkable than confusion over, say Al Lewis' birthdate. Chris Stangl 05:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Anyone verify the Bible? Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it false...The Virgin Mary, "they give her a pelvic exam to prove 100% she was pure", amyschubbyhubby 13:09, 21 April 2006 {UTC}
• Speedy Keep - the veracity of some info isn't a reason to delete the whole thing. Dismas|^(talk) 15:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, Gimme a break. if an article has small amount of unverifible/questionable info, tag it as such or take it out. You don't delete the whole article of a notable person. Crumbsucker 18:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep! Enough information is given to verify all the stuff you are arguing about. Her marriages are public record, and have her legal name. The Spelling award would have record of who won it that year, the piano award would also be verifiable if anyone cared to do so, and Mensa has her in their magazine. Surely they verified all her info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.114.156 (talk • contribs)

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.