Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Alexander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Cbrown1023 02:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicole Alexander

Nicole Alexander (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I-am-neither-playa-nor-playa-hater Nomination for deletion

Winner of a celebrity dating VH1 TV show who dumped the celebrity, Flavor Flav as soon as the filming was over (very brief mention in NYTimes article on Flavor Flav:"Although the star found love again last season with Nicole Alexander, a former basketball player he nicknamed Hoopz, the brief union ended after the cameras stopped recording. 'All of a sudden, Hoopz got too busy,' he said, 'and I couldn't get in touch with her.'" - that's the entire mention she gets in the 1800 word article[1]).

Our girl Hoopz has done some dancing in a couple of music videos and was gameshow girl on a MTV gameshow for a bit, some modeling, got a bit part in a movie coming up and auditioning for others, has her own yet-to-be-named reality show coming up real soon which I can't find any trace of (her IMDB page hasn't heard of it either[2]),has been tusslin' with the cops, hates her neighbors, and most importantly, Officially Has A Myspace. Also:"Although her beauty is obvious, she has been noted to have a face that eerily resembles that of Kobe Bryant." (For the record, I feel this comment in the article is HARSH) (On the other hand, she was HARSH on Flavor Flav too)

Only 8 hits for "Nicole Alexander" + Hoopz/Flavor of Love in Factiva news database. ~318 hits on Google with Flavor of Love.~2,030 with Hoopz - including a lot of spam sites/blogs. Fails WP:BIO for her own article. Okay as a mention in the gameshow article Flavor of Love, but most of the content here should be cropped - Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip magazine/Hollywood talent database. Bwithh 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Note the sample text within the nomination (above) is no longer pertinent; it has been rewritten to WP standards including 4 references to independent sources --Kevin Murray 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Please don't strike out like 75% of my nomination text without even informing me. Your objection to one part of my nomination only relates to a small part of the text you struck out. Bwithh 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • For clarity sake I did not remove any text. I used strike-through with a bolded note at that place explaining that the article had been rewritten and that the quote was nolonger pertinent (my note now moved to below nomination). However, I appology to Bwithh; I did not mean to strike through his nomination text, just an oblsolete quote. --Kevin Murray 21:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • To the point This quote within your nomination is utterly confusing; what are you quoting? What is the bit about Kobe Bryant's face? It appeared to be a quote of jibberish and bad taste referring to the poor quality of the author's writing skills, which prompted me to rewrite the article for clarity and NPOV. What are you trying to say? Is your nomination for deletion written in "wrap-speak"? This seems a bit unappropriate, confusing, and meant to ridicule the article and subject rather than discuss the merits of her notability. --Kevin Murray 20:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sorry but I propose the article stay because of all its resoureful info. There was a mistake it was Nicole Manderos who got the part to the reality show "Nobody". Its was all a huge a mix up, if you will. Nicole has been confirmed as an actress and a pro-model. That is more thna enough for the article to stay. --Gamefan06 02:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:INTERESTING isn't an argument for keeping the article. You haven't given a reason why the subject passes WP:BIO. MER-C 04:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - entertainer with non-widespread recognition as per WP:BIO. MER-C 04:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MER-C. Akihabara 08:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as I feel she passes WP:BIO well enough as the somewhat known winner of a well-known reality show who has been reported on sufficiently. I could craft fairer and more successful Google searches than nominator (who seems to think Hoopz's notability is determined by how widely her real name is known), but that is not really to the point of the policy. I only offer the testament that, although I barely watched any Flavor of Love, I had an idea about who Hoopz was, wanted more information and turned to Wikipedia.

I do, of course, agree that the current article is rather bad and gossipy, and I hope that it is improved by someone more knowledgeable than I. Volucris 12:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 23:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with main FoL page. Ckessler 23:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC
  • Keep I've just updated the article with info. I think thats enough to not delete it!! --Inthaghetto 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
1. Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through news sources covering pornography or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets.
2. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets (the Air Force Amy rule).
3. Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche.
While not specifically a pornographic actress, she is an erotic entertainer skirting the fine-edges of soft-porn (see Eye Candy Modeling among other equally revealing sources), and she appears frequently on TV, and is clearly controversial. Like it or not, this is a phenomonon of our times and Volucris makes a strong point that Wikipedia should be a reliable source of information. --Kevin Murray 21:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. So she won the event, and she's not notable? I don't get it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Winning a cable reality show shouldn't make you notable.--Prosfilaes 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It shouldn't? I can't agree with that at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.EnabledDanger 06:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like EnabledDanger is a brand new member and already working here in AfD (Hmm?). Fast learner or Sockpuppet? --Kevin Murray 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We have the {{spa}} template for a reason: it doesn't quite WP:BITE as much as comments like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • While I may not display the articulate tact of ALKIVAR, I do think that AfD is serious business and is taken way too lightly and often without enough experience, alternatively sockpuppetry is a serious offense. In either case I'm not ashamed to call a spade a spade. --Kevin Murray 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, when you have a moment, WP:AGF might be worth a read. It is possible that someone might come to AfD first. Perhaps they've edited for years anonymously and only today felt the need to create an account. Who can tell? Not me, my mind-reading powers are woefully unreliable. Since you are able to read minds, is this Bwithh's sockpuppet? MER-C's? Naconkontari's? Mine? Sockpuppetry is rarely a serious matter. If EnabledDanger were a sockpuppet account, there would be no reason for the owner not to use it to vote in XfDs, just so long as they didn't vote twice. Having your article deleted from Wikipedia isn't life-threatening, or even painful. Ms Alexander will be doing her stuff on cable TV whether this article is deleted or not. Nothing that happens on Wikipedia is remotely serious. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You are politely digressing from the point, and asserting claims of clairvoyance which I never made. I suggested it was suspicious, and voting in AfD with sockpuppets is a serious offense if it represnts a 2nd vote. Whether the subject’s career and life will go on is irrelevant, the point is applying the notability standards evenly despite the personal likes and dislikes.
  • This is not “my” article. I came here as part of the AfD process. I’ve never heard of Hoopz nor watched the VH1 channel. I became involved in the discussion because I think the nomination write-up is abysmal and the arguments supporting deletion are weak. My basic feelings run close to those of ALKIVAR, but I lack his zeal and brevity. --Kevin Murray 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep stupid cunt... but well known stupid cunt.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:34, 30 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.