Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Teen (Second nomination)
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.
DRV overturns the original AfD closure, and deletes outright. Xoloz 15:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tiffany Teen
No sources Kotepho 12:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The article in question states actual basic facts about the site and I personally don't see any problems with it. Obviously those who want it deleting aren't getting any... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.144.127 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete same reasons as last time. Fails both BIO and PORNBIO, and totally unreferenced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- delete as genuine references seem nonexistant... nothing but archive.org and alexa, great, now I can write a 1,000 word article on my blog. On a related note, given the claims of this article and the total lack of sources, this is a borderline WP:BLP issue, especially as her real name is occasionally added and eventually reverted. --W.marsh 13:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - A unique Google count of 806,000 can't be ignored [1] and her website alone had an alexia hit of 3000 [2]. In web porn, there just isn't the typical "published works" about widely popular stars, yet they still are stars whether we like it or not. Porn is a $10 billion business in the USA alone [3]. Wikipedia, "The sum of all knowledge," shouldn't be ignoring popular people simply because they don't fit into stringent guidelines that are frequently arbitrarily adhered to, not to mention in constant flux. BTW, WP:PORNBIO doesn't apply to this person as that category is specifically for porn actors and actresses, not internet models. --Oakshade 18:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- But going back to BLP... if this person were to take offense to this article, we couldn't really say "Well it was okay for us to say these things about you because you get a lot of Google results". We need reliable sources, even if someone is an adult model, and none of the statements in this article seem to at all be backed up by them. Bending the rules is problematic, especially in this case. --W.marsh 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The site was intentionally created and participated in by this person [4], so an objection to an article about this person by them is nonsensical. As there's not solid confirmation of this person's real name (unless you count IMDB [5]), it should not be included. But that's a content issue, not about the existence of the article. --Oakshade 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Er, you believe blurbs found on porn sites to be reliable sources? That stuff is written (almost always by the webmaster) to get people to subscribe to the site, not as honest statements from the model. At any rate it confirms very little of the content of this article. --W.marsh 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was only responding to the allagation about the subject taking offense to an article about their own website. --Oakshade 01:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then the article could never really say much more than "According to a blurb on a now-defunct website, Tiffany Teen was a non-nude model". And really... that's it. That's not much of an article. --W.marsh 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- But that's a serious problem with our haphazardly followed and constantly changing guidelines I was referring to. By these guidelines, a widely popular star in an enormously popular genre is arbitrarily considered "non-notable." --Oakshade 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Popular amongst Wikipedia editors maybe, but we aren't a very representative sample. If someone really is that important, they will get written about by reliable sources. But ultimately this is not about who's popular and who isn't, it's only about who we can write an accurate, neutral article on... we don't really seem to be able to do that here. --W.marsh 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Popular in the public, not amongst Wikipedia editors (this has nothing to do with the pupularity amongst Wikipedia editors). That's what this is about. Those kind of google hits and alexa ratings demonstrates popularity, but not "notability" under Wikipedia guidelines that are arbitrarily followed and change all the time. --Oakshade 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- But again, that's not what it's really about.. unless those Google hits can be cited as reliable sources... which I seriously doubt is the case. We can't bend the rules to include unreliable information just because we think the topic is popular. --W.marsh 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, it doesn't qualify under our strict standards. It's a notable person that's not seen as such is the eyes of WP and I respect those who adhere to our standards, although I'm finding others are happy to ignore them to suit their opinions, but that's another debate. --Oakshade 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Popular amongst Wikipedia editors maybe, but we aren't a very representative sample. If someone really is that important, they will get written about by reliable sources. But ultimately this is not about who's popular and who isn't, it's only about who we can write an accurate, neutral article on... we don't really seem to be able to do that here. --W.marsh 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- But that's a serious problem with our haphazardly followed and constantly changing guidelines I was referring to. By these guidelines, a widely popular star in an enormously popular genre is arbitrarily considered "non-notable." --Oakshade 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then the article could never really say much more than "According to a blurb on a now-defunct website, Tiffany Teen was a non-nude model". And really... that's it. That's not much of an article. --W.marsh 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was only responding to the allagation about the subject taking offense to an article about their own website. --Oakshade 01:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Er, you believe blurbs found on porn sites to be reliable sources? That stuff is written (almost always by the webmaster) to get people to subscribe to the site, not as honest statements from the model. At any rate it confirms very little of the content of this article. --W.marsh 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The site was intentionally created and participated in by this person [4], so an objection to an article about this person by them is nonsensical. As there's not solid confirmation of this person's real name (unless you count IMDB [5]), it should not be included. But that's a content issue, not about the existence of the article. --Oakshade 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- But going back to BLP... if this person were to take offense to this article, we couldn't really say "Well it was okay for us to say these things about you because you get a lot of Google results". We need reliable sources, even if someone is an adult model, and none of the statements in this article seem to at all be backed up by them. Bending the rules is problematic, especially in this case. --W.marsh 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - She genuinely is famous (I'd heard of her, and what I know about the US porn industry could be written on a postage stamp). Yes, it's unreferenced at present, but it clearly could be. The only part of it that could possibly violate WP:BIO is the final paragraph - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- How could it "clearly" be sourced? You have reliable sources? --W.marsh 21:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete You can't reliably source this sort of thing, even with the aid of all those (largely spammy) links. Postlebury 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
DELETE PLEASE Most of articles here are realiable with external links, and besides a couple references (porn sites) there are no links leading directly to statistics or real good reasons for this one. Nobody can even write something reliable/assured on her. Not engough good reasons for this article to remain available. The proof: it's the second time it's been asked for deletion.— 70.81.172.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
- Comment the standard here would be WP:PORNBIO which works to different rules than the usual WP:N - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PORNBIO doesn't trump the need to be able to generate an accurate (non-libelous!) article from the available sources. Pornbio conflicts with WP:N and the foundation-level principles of verifiability... an issue that hasn't been resolved yet.
- Also, does this person even meet WP:PORNBIO in the first place? I'm not seeing it. Notice the requirement that the claims must be "as substantiated through reliable sources". --W.marsh 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the standard here would be WP:PORNBIO which works to different rules than the usual WP:N - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Oakshade.Patcat88 08:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep please such a high alexa ranking should pass the bio notes yuckfoo 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:BIO and WP:WEB are the relevent guidelines here and they do not mention Alexa as a valid criteria. --W.marsh 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- But last i checked 809,000 unique google hits was notable. Clean the article up of unsourced material, find some sources... We dont delete everything just because its unsourced (if we did we'd lose 85% of our content), we stubbify it and expand with sources. KEEP ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Did you look at the content of those? I'd wager at least 90% of them are completely irrelevant, mere search engine seeding, compilations of pictures of her, or what not. --Golbez 22:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Uh what did you check, exactly? There's no policy or guideline that's going to say 809k google hits means we must keep an article. And again, there are apparently no sources to use here... that's the whole problem. --W.marsh 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- But last i checked 809,000 unique google hits was notable. Clean the article up of unsourced material, find some sources... We dont delete everything just because its unsourced (if we did we'd lose 85% of our content), we stubbify it and expand with sources. KEEP ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:BIO and WP:WEB are the relevent guidelines here and they do not mention Alexa as a valid criteria. --W.marsh 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, fails notability. --Golbez 22:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very weak delete per Oakshade reasoning for keep; I've trimmed the parts that are the most damaging if untrue, but I am concerned that nobody has provided sources by now. Are there no directory entries that at least provide our article some foundation to stand on?? All I want to see is two good sources that say she ran a raunchy website. John Vandenberg 06:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if reliable sources can be provided to support the article. The discussion here convinces me that we should have an article about this person, that she is notable enough, but that still does not trump our WP:A policy. If said sources cannot be found, then do the right thing until they turn up. Burntsauce 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I found one RS on Google News Archive. John Vandenberg 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Wired story is just a 1-paragraph mention, doesn't really meet WP:N. At any rate, is "tiffany-teen-model.com" even this person? The Wired article says it's a 13 year old girl. That article was also written in 2001 and Tiffany Teen launched in 2003. So... I'm gonna say this source is not quite what we were looking for. --W.marsh 13:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wondered about the TiffanyTeen link in that Wired article too. Could they have been referring to a different "Tiffany Teen" who also was a young teen non-nude model who posed barely clothed frequently with other teens? I venture to guess probably
not and think the Wired folks put the wrong link in. But I don't know for sure. --Oakshade 21:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)- Yes, the dates do seem to confirm the Wired article is referring to a different TiffanyTeen, but this Wired article was not part of my arguement to keep. --Oakshade 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wondered about the TiffanyTeen link in that Wired article too. Could they have been referring to a different "Tiffany Teen" who also was a young teen non-nude model who posed barely clothed frequently with other teens? I venture to guess probably
- The Wired story is just a 1-paragraph mention, doesn't really meet WP:N. At any rate, is "tiffany-teen-model.com" even this person? The Wired article says it's a 13 year old girl. That article was also written in 2001 and Tiffany Teen launched in 2003. So... I'm gonna say this source is not quite what we were looking for. --W.marsh 13:23, 26 April 2007 (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.
