Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flick Shagwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Joyous (talk) July 7, 2005 22:02 (UTC)

[edit] Flick Shagwell

There is no way this person is real (and even if she were it should still go I think). OK admittedly she is real, but should it be on Wikipedia? Much as there are 190,000 Google hits they certainly don't seem to refer to the same person (some say Asian some British for example). I refer back to my previous opinion that she is not a real person but rather a popular pseudonym. Nevertheless it had a few edits so I didn't give it a speedy. Will => talk 20:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment It's possible to be British and Asian. Hiding 23:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very true (although I was just trying to highlight a point because I don't think they are all the same person). Will => talk 23:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment OK after looking at a number of biographies on the google results, I think she is a real person. Saying that, most of the google results all seem to link to the same few sites so I'm not sure that she is as popular as it may seem. Oh and as it is she isn't Asian. Will => talk 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, or blatant vanity at best. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as a useless article with no context. - Mike Rosoft 20:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Based on the article's rewrite this is a real porn actress. I am changing my vote to abstain until I find out what are the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for such people. - Mike Rosoft 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - you gotta google it, wikipedian. Over 190,000 entries. It's a stub, but she's as real as any of them are. Naturenet 20:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sure she may be completely real, but hair - and eye color,height, weight and such are not data to put in an encyclopedia. What about films she was in. I'd rather not verify it at the moment, there's people in the room that would be rather surprised if I looked up a porn actress... - Mgm|(talk) 21:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability provided in the article. For pornstars, google hits aren't a reasonable metric, since 95% of the internet is porn. CDC (talk) 21:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs expansion, but a notable porn star and as worthy of an article as the others. If the article remains nothing but stats then it can be deleted and someone can recreate it when they want to write a little more on the subject. 23skidoo 23:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the 190K claim above is nowhere near correct, take out the duplicates and the real Google score is 686. Granted, that's still higher than a lot of our VfD candidates, but as mentioned, the internet and search engines have a natual bias toward porn, with a lot of websites consisting of nothing else but thousands (millions?) of porn-related keywords. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I wonder how correct is your claim. Google never displays more than 1000 results, and perhaps the 686 are just the 1000 with duplicates eliminated. (I do not believe that duplicates could ever reduce the number of hits from almost 200.000 to less than 1000.) - Mike Rosoft 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That is true, but all the same, most of the hits do seem to be automated lists of keywords which link to the same sites - as has been stated google isn't a very good measure when it comes to porn. Nevertheless, she may well be famous enough in her genre to deserve an article - I wouldn't know ;-) Will => talk 09:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 190,000 google hits is a lot even for a porn artist. Kappa 00:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Xoloz 04:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, notable pr0n artist. JamesBurns 07:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google is inherently biased, and there's no shortage of porn actresses (I won't use the word artist- sorry, but artistic merit is something people rarely look for in this particular subject), so I find it hard to believe thet they're inherently notable if they have google hits. Of course they have google hits! Anybody, what's the number one use of the internet? 4-letter word, sounds like corn. Don't mistake this as a vote for censorship, which I'm not in favor of; but you cannot use google hits to determine notability of porn stars. --Scimitar 14:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. The fact that porn actresses pop up a lot on internet searches is a function of the internet and how it has become a perfect distribution method for the pornography industry. Just because Wikipedia is internet-based does not mean we should base our standards of notability on Google counts when it comes to porn stars. The most minor porn actress probably has more hits than most Nobel prize winners. Based on my brief review of the various porn categories and lists on Wikipedia such as List of porn stars, we already have hundreds of porn actors and actresses with articles (and I assume that not every porn actor or actress has been categorized or linked on the lists). While there are some that are truly notable, such as Mary Carey or Linda Lovelace, I would venture to say most are not. In most cases we know nothing about them other than their stage names. Almost all of the "girls" claim to be 18 or 19, but like Dorian Gray, they seem to stay the same age. Any supposed "facts" that are published are likely nothing more than marketing, and certainly not verifiable. Although Ms. "Shagwell" does exhibit the ability to accept large objects into an orifice generally used for discharges, I fail to see how that distinguishes her from many other nameless "stars" in her profession. DS1953 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Pseudonym + date of birth + unverifiable place of birth (pornographers lie, to target their markets) + unverifiable nationality (pornographers lie, to target their markets) + job. No evidence that this person has been on a magazine cover, caused a legal controversy or a scandal, starred in a mainstream film, run a major business, written a book, or been first in a field. For the reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri, and as per Scimitar and DS1953, Delete. Uncle G 16:24, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • keep this please do not let your personal biases influence your vote it is not the wiki way Yuckfoo 18:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Please do not imply that a discussion (that has until this point been about verifiability of information, Google hits, and notability of the subject at hand) is a discussion about censorship, thereby derailing it from talking about the subject at hand as it has been. Uncle G 20:59, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Comment- I endorse Yuckfoo. I'm concerned that this debate is becoming a debate on the merits of porn stars (on wikipedia) in general. That's a worthy debate, but not for here. Let's not assume that nothing fictional is worthy of an article or we'll be dealing with a lot of cross Star Trek fans! And if the internet unfairly promotes porn, how unfair are all the articles on computer-related stuff? Let's just consider this article, in a NPOV way, for now. Naturenet 18:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If the last two comments were directed at my comments (since I am one of the relatively few to have voted to delete), I thought I made it clear that I am not opposed to having porn stars if they are notable. What I do think is that the concept of what is notable is being grossly distorted by the fact that the porn industry uses the internet for delivery and that the focus on Google hits is a very myopic way to determine the notability of these people. In my opinion, this person does not meet the notability standards of WP:BIO. It seems to me by applying the Google test, anyone who is willing to make a couple of hardcore films under an assumed name is automatically notable under the definitions others are applying. Independent judgment seems completely lacking here, since I see no arguments in favor other than citations to a test which I believe is not an accurate gauge of notability in this case. I have no personal problems with the porn industry existing or even being represented fairly within Wikipedia. I fail to see where that shows any personal bias. DS1953 20:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Unverifiable things are not worth articles. That's our policy. Wikipedia is not a 'phone book. That is also our policy. So far, all that we have about this person is her pseudonym(s), her date of birth, and that she has a job that tens of thousands of other people have. (The place of birth and nationality are unverifiable, for reasons already stated.) That doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria. It doesn't come anywhere close. MacGyverMagic and I have both mentioned some of the things that might cause such a person to meet the WP:BIO criteria. We don't aim to have articles on every single fast food restaurant worker in the world, even though we could verify their names, dates of birth, and jobs too. Uncle G 20:59, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
      • Her claims of being born in such-and-such a place are verifiable. If she is notable, this is all we need be concerned about. Many notable -- but odd -- people give false details in their biographies. The untruth of these is interesting, and might be discussed in any article, but should not prevent otherwise notable articles from passing. No one is certain about the age of Mae West (because she lied about it quite often), the birthplace of Andrew Jackson (because little attention was paid to the birth at the time), or any biographical details of mytho-legendary historical figures galore. What is important is that enough people knew of these notable figures, and accepted details regarding them. We don't strike Jesus for lack of a verifiable birthday. Xoloz 02:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I see no verifiability. Please point to the place where she herself (rather than some pornography copywriter just making blurb up to go with the pictures) has actually claimed a nationality and place of birth. In any case, that has no bearing upon the points that I made. Even having pseudonym(s), date of birth, job (that tens of thousands of other people have), claimed nationality, and claimed place of birth doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria, by an enormous margin. Articles about everyone who ever received a green card would be justified on those grounds. The discussion of Mae West, Andrew Jackson, and Jesus is irrelevant and completely misses the point. Uncle G 19:18, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Whether or not we can verify the claims of where she was born, her age and any other facts is not really the issue. We can verify the age, height and place of birth of any number of people ranging from singers and shop assistants to teachers and students. However this is not sufficient to earn them a place on Wikipedia. What must be established is whether this woman is a notable porn actress. After all, while I have nothing at all against porn actresses appearing on Wikipedia, it is certainly not the case that every single one deserves an article. This is when the google results come into it. Whilst a non-notable teacher would have very few search engine results (perhaps one or two from the school website or that of a local newspaper), a non-notable porn actress may have a very large number of results. This is because they conduct their entire business via the internet whereas for most jobs the internet is fairly irrelevent to their working life. As such we can expect that any porn actress will get a great many search engine results as this is their form of advertising (although note that most of these results are actually automated lists of keywords to inflate page ranks). What we have to establish is whether Ms Shagwell is an especially notable porn actress or whether she is just one of thousands of actresses who have not yet earnt a place on Wikipedia. Google results will not tell us this because any porn actress, notable or not, will get huge numbers of these - their entire source of income depends on it. Will => talk 21:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.