Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lara Roxx

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lara Roxx

I am placing a VFD on this and, probably, other articles concerning porn 'stars' simply because, all too often, there is confusion between 'notability' and 'notoriety' - this is a perfect example.

• Lara Roxx, Darren James and their ilk are 'notorious'. That is, they are known, but in an unfavourable manner and in a restricted circle. They cannot be considered as 'notable' or 'noteworthy' as they have not added anything to the sum of human intellectual achievement or to the human condition. Nor are they particularly striking or worthy in their achievement.
• They cannot be considered as 'actors' other than in the sense of their being participants in an act. They are not 'theatrical performers' in any sense - being filmed whilst having sex does not require any communicable skill.
• Tough on Lara, but catching AIDS in your line of work does not make you notable either. I am sure that if one dug around, there are cases of medical professionals catching AIDS in their line of work - folk who are probably a good deal more 'socially useful' too (dons flamproof suit quickly).
• Wikipedia can, does, and should have entries for 'notorious' persons (eg:Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer) who may be considered notable for their actions, the effect of those actions and the amount of interest garnered by those actions in a general social sense.
  • In the case of pornography, and with reference to the above paragraph, Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner are good examples of those who may be considered notorious and notable.

Let the Games begin! Eddie.willers 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep I don't buy the distinction between between notable and notorious wrt the wikipedia standards for inclusion. "Adding to the sum of human intellectual achievement or human condition" seems to me to be a weasly way of excluding people whose behavior doesn't please the nominator; that is, it is an inherent POV value judgment. Therefore, there is no proposed valid reason for this to be on the table for deletion, so keep. Brighterorange 13:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Made the news, hence notable. Halo 13:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Would also like to say that it sounds like you are trying to use VFD to push an agenda, which I don't think is a good idea. Whatsmore, if we used your method of saying that someting is notable, we wouldn't have pages on murderers etc either because they haven't done anything other than "kill people" which has gone on for thousands of years. I don't think someone necessarily has to have done anything intelligent to be noteworthy as long as they are somewhat known in their field. Halo 13:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Eddie, please do not do this. This will be an annoying experience for all. Sdedeo 14:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable. "Notoriety" is a POV on this Sliggy 14:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even I heard about this. A 60 day work stoppage in the porn industry is notable. Klonimus 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Pah! Comments noted and VFD nomination withdrawn - having no wish to provoke "an annoying experience for all". Still, POV issues aside, I do not believe that porn 'stars' merit an encyclopeadic article. Eddie.willers 15:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for being understanding, Eddie. Sdedeo 15:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • VfDs cannot really be 'withdrawn' as such. For example, I wish to comment on the article now it has come to my attention, and others may also. -Splash 19:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This one has some minor interest per the start of the article. That does not apply to most porn-stars however, and I would be interested in a selective VfDing of those that are non-notable. Simply VfDing them all would not be appropriate however. -Splash 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's keep in mind that "lack of notability" has never been accepted by consensus as sufficient grounds for deletion of articles. We're not dealing with the assistant editor of a high school newspaper here. We're talking about perfomers who appear in movies that are widely distributed. Many of them also appear in magazines that are also widely distributed. This makes then public figures, and therefore worthy of a Wikipedia article, as long as it provides some relevant information beyond "Candy Blossom is a porn star." The "porn stars aren't notable" argument smacks of a bit of prurience. In an encyclopedia that has articles on fictional characters, TV show episodes, and reality show participants, it is hard to justify deleting articles on performers in a popular, mass market form of entertainment. Zeromacnoo 19:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The criteria outlined by Eddie Willers are NPOV and should be irrelevant to considering biographies. According to WP:Bio the relevant criteria is "Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more." Ms Roxx meets these criteria. Capitalistroadster 20:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't buy the distinction between notorious and notable. Whether or not everything the proposer says is true, they're still notable and worth putting in Wikipedia. (And the fact is, much of what the proposer says, I consider to be nonsense and wrongfully judgemental, and I'm sure I could find fields of interest that I consider to be without skills and merely notorious among a restricted field that the proposer would disagree with.)--Prosfilaes 20:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Having looked at the article, I have to wonder what you were thinking. Yes, being the first person in four years to get AIDS in the porn industry and prompting potential government intrusion or changes from within to avoid government intrustion is notable.--Prosfilaes 22:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP as is (in)famous with many people, it's perfectly notable. Notorious would be a subset of notability in any case. Further, I remember a VfD on every Victoria Cross holder, since Victoria Cross awardees are imminently more notable than Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, ever CMH holder should also be VfD'd because they are inherently less notable. So... if being notorious is not good enough, we should VfD "Al Capone", "Caligula", "Nero", "Pol Pot", "Papa Doc" Duvalier, "Robispiere", "Elizabeth I", "Ivan the Terrible", "Vlad the Impaler", "Jesse James", "Billy the Kid", "Ulysses S. Grant", "Heinrich Himmler", "Marilyn Monroe", "Martin Luther", "Copernicus", ... 132.205.3.20 20:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Would you miss it? Really? Those of you who said "yes" just now, are you sure you weren't lying? Tsk-tsk. Fine, fine, deal this as Abstain then. --Agamemnon2 21:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We are not building wikipedia for our own benefit, so the question of whether we would miss it is irrelevant. Kappa 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Jachin 22:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A one month cessation in such a huge industry is notable, and if Ms. Roxx was a major contributing factor to that, then she is notable. Cnwb 00:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, notoriety can = notability, but I don't want to let anybody think this is an endorsement of Halo's claim that everybody who ever made it into a newspaper deserves an article. Zoe 07:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because she r0xxors. —RaD Man (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 08:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unconditionally. Hall Monitor 22:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Cnwb and Kappa. No opinion now about notoriety vis-a-vis notability; I'm going on "widespread media coverage" and on "significant effect on one's field". Barno 00:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep I don't like what they do, but they are legally allowed to do it. Also, the inital "notable" vs. "notorious" argument implies a judgement, which is not what this is supposed to be about; it's about collecting information. Frankly, they are both "editorializing" in any context. Insisting someone is "notorious" as opposed to "notable" is forcing your values on this, this is not about that.

• Keep It will be such an hypocresy to deny this element of our society and culture. If the article was written it is because somebody thinks the topic is interesting. At the end that is wikipedia a completely democratic source of information.
• Keep Pornography is important in our society, and this should be reflected in Wikipedia too.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.