Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tori Stone
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 of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tori Stone
Delete. Unless any further information comes to light on Tawnee's "sister", I vote that the page should be removed. It merely duplicates information that is available on the Tawnee Stone page and is, therefore, redundant. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Andjam 05:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. NN. Merge with Tawnee if you think it worthwhile. Herostratus 07:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - IF and only IF this is the same Tori Stone I am seeing 290,000 google hits and a fabled porn star. I won't give you all the links, but try this one: [1]. Some people occasionally say "model" as a nice way to say "porn star" lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, its her. Check this out [2] and [3]. Lightspeed is a porno model agency. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- For the fourth time: Counting Google hits is not research. For the reasons explained on Wikipedia:Google test, the Google test is useless as any sort of metric when it comes to people in the Internet pornography industry. In the pornography industry, most people are deliberately unverifiable, by their own choices and due to the nature of what they do. If you have a reliable source of biographical information on this person that can be used to construct an encyclopaedia article, please cite it. But bear in mind that the purported biographies that accompany the pictures on pornography web sites or in magazines are almost always made up. All that you have cited so far are three advertisements, one of which even explicitly describes itself as an "Advertising Come-On". Advertisements for Internet pornography are untrustworthy. Uncle G 14:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please stop the abuse! It is not necessary! Counting google hits is a valid method to determine notoriety. It is not the only method, and you can personally disagree with it, however it is a method. Your tone is verging on a Wikipedia:no personal attacks and I would ask you to tone it down and stop the attacks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Zordrac, I sincerely doubt that Uncle G is making a personal attack against you -- he is only being matter-of-fact. And, unfortunately, he is correct in saying that the Google test is sketchy at best and shouldn't be used as the sole litmus test to determine the notability of pornographic personalities. For the record, Google bombing (or search-enginge bombing in general) is a common phenomenon by producers and distributors of pornography -- unsurprising, given that many technologies such as video on demand are first accepted by the pornographic industry prior to the "mainstream" industries. (Side note: I would wager that if Hollywood were to Google bomb as well, we would have the same problem in determining the notability of actors, actresses and even productions.) Anyway, don't take any comments personally and take them as constructive critism (or new lessons as a Wikipedian). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Its not used as the sole test, it is used as a factor. If you'd been following my votes, you'd know that. And the Google test is a legitimate method described in Wikipedia guidelines to determine an article's notoriety. So telling me that I am not allowed to use it is silly and just plain nasty, especially if it is done 4 or 5 times in increasingly nasty ways. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Zordrac, I sincerely doubt that Uncle G is making a personal attack against you -- he is only being matter-of-fact. And, unfortunately, he is correct in saying that the Google test is sketchy at best and shouldn't be used as the sole litmus test to determine the notability of pornographic personalities. For the record, Google bombing (or search-enginge bombing in general) is a common phenomenon by producers and distributors of pornography -- unsurprising, given that many technologies such as video on demand are first accepted by the pornographic industry prior to the "mainstream" industries. (Side note: I would wager that if Hollywood were to Google bomb as well, we would have the same problem in determining the notability of actors, actresses and even productions.) Anyway, don't take any comments personally and take them as constructive critism (or new lessons as a Wikipedian). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please stop the abuse! It is not necessary! Counting google hits is a valid method to determine notoriety. It is not the only method, and you can personally disagree with it, however it is a method. Your tone is verging on a Wikipedia:no personal attacks and I would ask you to tone it down and stop the attacks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless she's done something more than take her clothes off in front of a camera and had her picture put on a few websites. Sadly, porn stardom is becoming so common that's it not that much of an accomplishment. Peyna 14:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article cites no sources of biographical information that can be used to verify the article. The only purported sources supplied here turn out to be simple advertisements from the people/organizations selling pictures of this person, that are in no way reliable sources by their very nature as self-sourced self-promotional advertisments. The widespread advertising and Googlebombing employed by the industry in which this person purportedly works makes it impossible to locate actual sources of biographical information after the fact. If someone has published a magazine feature article, a news article, a book, a documentary, or some other non-trivial work about this person herself that doesn't amount to a simple catalogue entry, it is impossible to find. (Wikipedia is not a simple catalogue of people. It is not a Yellow Pages or a telephone directory.) And there are no audience figures for the works in which this person may have appeared. As with many people in this industry, it is no doubt deliberate that the only information publicly available about this person herself is fabricated blurb. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 14:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Existing article is virtually content-free and this individual doesn't appear to have achieved the notability in her genre yet. 23skidoo 16:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as short article with little or no context. She might be notable but the article isn't much chop.Keep Zordrac's rewrite - she seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 18:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)- Comment: I honestly don't know if the current article is still good enough. I will give the proper acknowledgement to Zordrac for making an effort to epxand what was a glorified stub article. However the article reads less like a bio and more of a profitability study on "Tori Stone". Perhaps a page of Lightspeed models is in order, with Tori Stone as redirect? Just a thought or three... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Lightspeed_Media_Corporation already does have their own page. Feel free to vote to merge to that page (although the other 2 "stars" of Lightspeed media have their own wikipedia pages, so I don't see why this one doesn't). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I honestly don't know if the current article is still good enough. I will give the proper acknowledgement to Zordrac for making an effort to epxand what was a glorified stub article. However the article reads less like a bio and more of a profitability study on "Tori Stone". Perhaps a page of Lightspeed models is in order, with Tori Stone as redirect? Just a thought or three... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I have rewritten most of the article, including links, I think I have 10 independent reviews in there, and so forth. Most of the links are pornographic however so I am not sure of the protocol for that. I could find absolutely nothing that suggests that she is not Tawnee Stone's sister. Every single place said that they were sisters. However, given that there are videos of them having sex with each other, and they are frequently displayed together on web sites, it seems likely that they are not really sisters, and that it is merely being used for the incest angle. The fact that she charges US $35/mth for a soft porn web site with only herself in there and no bonus extras to me says a lot. Average price for full on porn sites is something in the order of US $15-$25, with 100s of models. For her to charge that much by herself, well, only the very best do that. Ergo, significant claims to notoriety. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- If I start a web page and ask for $100 a month to see pictures of me, will you nominate me for Article of the Day? 24.164.154.130
- If 1,000s of people are prepared to pay it, yes. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- But we have no evidence of that here. What we do have is a naked person whom someone decided needed to be spammed all over the Internet. Peyna 18:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. There were a number of independent reviews of the site, which have suggestions of how many people use it. It would be interesting to find out how many people do pay to see it, but I am not sure if it is possible to get that information. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- But we have no evidence of that here. What we do have is a naked person whom someone decided needed to be spammed all over the Internet. Peyna 18:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- If 1,000s of people are prepared to pay it, yes. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- If I start a web page and ask for $100 a month to see pictures of me, will you nominate me for Article of the Day? 24.164.154.130
- KeepThis article needs some editing, but I say keep. You people trolling afd pages are too trigger happy.--
--(U | T | C) 08:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- ) I think that you should vote more, Ewok Slayer. I think that the M:Inclusionism angle needs to be represented in here as well. By the way, I got sick of trying to rewrite the article, as I had personally never heard of her and have no interest in this kind of thing, but if you'd like to add bits to it, then please do. I could have included more reviews in the refs, but I got up to hit number 350 on google and got tired. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Weak keep; apparently has some mild notability in her industry. *Dan T.* 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP I though probably the best option is to maintein it with a few little information so people go to Tawnee Stone page and when we could know more about her, put it. Piranna
- Keep notable. Grue 20:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. She apparently "entered the business" about May, 2005 (according to the article) and she is "notable" 7 months later? Why? Just because the industry has cranked up the PR machinery and generated a ton of links? Not verifiable! Let her establish notability first like some other porn stars, then include her, rather than fall for the PR. -- DS1953 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, the PR machinery has put her in the realm of things that users would hope to be able to read about in an encyclopedia. Kappa 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Everyking 06:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- OffTopic: What means PR machinery? Please... :D I supose it, but here at Spain i haven't hear it. Piranna 18:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, "PR" means public relations (a form of marketing) but the term "marketing" might have been a better choice anyway since marketing would include the website creation and the various search engine optimization (SEO) techniques that they use to blanket the Internet so that someone who, by July 2005 "produced \'15 solo pictorial sets, as well as 10 videos, of combined length approx 30-40 minutes" (per the article) causes editors to fall over themselves in a rush to label her notable. As you can tell from my comments, I am amazed that so many people fall for this. Hype is hype, regardless of the industry, and I can't understand why we lower the notability bar so low. There are certainly notable porn stars but I find it hard to believe that this is one of them. -- DS1953 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- So Tawnee Stone is notable, yet her "sister" (marketed as her sister), photographed together all the time, always talked about together, filmed together, is not notable? How the hell does that work? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Tawnee hasn't even done all that much work herself; however, I have seen many photos and videos of her, and only very very few of the two of the them together, and even less of her "sister" alone. Trust me, if there were more out there, I would have found them by now. 65.185.187.7 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- So Tawnee Stone is notable, yet her "sister" (marketed as her sister), photographed together all the time, always talked about together, filmed together, is not notable? How the hell does that work? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, "PR" means public relations (a form of marketing) but the term "marketing" might have been a better choice anyway since marketing would include the website creation and the various search engine optimization (SEO) techniques that they use to blanket the Internet so that someone who, by July 2005 "produced \'15 solo pictorial sets, as well as 10 videos, of combined length approx 30-40 minutes" (per the article) causes editors to fall over themselves in a rush to label her notable. As you can tell from my comments, I am amazed that so many people fall for this. Hype is hype, regardless of the industry, and I can't understand why we lower the notability bar so low. There are certainly notable porn stars but I find it hard to believe that this is one of them. -- DS1953 23:40, 7 December 2005 (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.
