Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nautica Thorn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 13:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nautica Thorn
Porn actress. Notability not established. Radiant! 16:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, pr0ncruft. —Korath (Talk) 18:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think we need an entry on every single porn actor, <irony>only the important ones</irony>. HyperZonktalk 19:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Simon 19:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- No vote. She does return over 56,300 google hits [1] -- is Google an unfair barometer in this instance? GRider\talk 20:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:It's not that google is an unfair barometer, it's that being a porn star requires no special talent, and/or that articles on porn stars made wikipedia look bad Kappa 20:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- How that is relevant, I do not understand. Is it our job to maintain a unique and complete on-line encyclopedia or play the role of the morality police? GRider\talk 20:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that it makes Wikipedia look bad. We have quite a bunch of R-rated categories already. However, it is true that being a porn star requires nothing but a certain morality, and the appearance (if female) or endurance (if male). Also, anything sex-related is likely to be over-represented on the internet, so the google test is not quite a balanced criterium when applied to porn. Radiant! 21:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Making no comment on the morality issue, I point out that Google Web is an exceptionally unfair barometer when it comes to pornography and pornographic actors and actresses, maybe even more so than it is for bloggers. The pornography web site publishers go to great lengths to ensure that it is that way. Try the Google Groups test instead of the Google Web test. (Hint: "Nautica Thorn" gets less than 1% of the number of Google Groups hits than my real name does.) Uncle G 01:20, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Comment:It's not that google is an unfair barometer, it's that being a porn star requires no special talent, and/or that articles on porn stars made wikipedia look bad Kappa 20:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If this is being used to set a precedent I'd better vote keep. The google hits are adequate evidence of importance, and I'm sure she would pass the 'album test' if it applied equally to musicians and porn performers. Normally I probably wouldn't vote because I sympathize with the "no talent required" angle and it goes against consensus. Kappa 21:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm trying to set the precedent that, while the google test is a very good test of notability in most cases, it should not apply as easily to a porn actress. Radiant! 22:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Her imdb entry lists 100 videos. Keep. RickK 23:32, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Who are you and what have you done with the real RickK. —RaD Man (talk) 23:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: In, what, a year or so? What does that tell us about the production effort and noteworthiness of each? Barno 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Checked IMDB: Oldest of those movies was 2003, except for "Texas Sex Tour (1998)". Her DOB is listed as 1984 so she was fourteen (or thirteen and a fraction) in that appearance. Barno 23:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What in the blazes is a fourteen-year-old doing in a porn movie? Either her birthdate is wrong, the date of the movie is wrong, she didn't really appear there, or there's something really shady going on. 193.167.132.66 09:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Checked IMDB: Oldest of those movies was 2003, except for "Texas Sex Tour (1998)". Her DOB is listed as 1984 so she was fourteen (or thirteen and a fraction) in that appearance. Barno 23:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Concur with Radiant's last two comments. Porn's overrepresentation on the Web is not a proportionate measure of its significance for WP's purposes. For actresses, movies, and other potential topics in this category, I believe the Google test should be considered less decisive. Similar criteria for encyclopedic noteworthiness should apply to these performers as to other occupations. In other words, not every Hairy Dickin' Tom should be in a general Wikipedia. Barno 23:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme keep any and all porno stars who have participated in more than 100 films listed on IMDb. —RaD Man (talk) 23:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Google is not a good indicator when it comes to pr0n. Megan1967 23:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep while i agree google overrepresents porn, the fact that theres more than 100 films in her imdb entry says she's noteable. ALKIVAR™
23:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Comment: I've been trying to figure out how many hits a "nobody" in the porn industry would get. Some of the people on the cast lists only get 1,000-6,000 hits, so assuming that is "nobody" level, 50,000+ hits is "somebody". Kappa 00:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Pornography, and only a few porn actors ever become generally notable. --BM 01:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. With over 100 films and over 50,000 indicates that plenty of people have seen her films whether they are to our tastes or not. Capitalistroadster 10:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Cr, you've proven yourself pretty resourceful. If she is a notable person, I challenge you to find out her real name, her date of birth, her educational background and training as an actress, the city she currently lives in, and a few other standard facts that biographies of living people on Wikipedia ought to have. The porn industry apes Hollywood, and wants to package the people they cast in the movies as "stars". Almost without exception, they are just exploited labor, and no more notable than a stripper, which most of them were or are. Wikipedia shouldn't be buying this nonsense. She might have a 100 video "credits" to her name but as Barno pointed out above, she is only 19 and has been working in the porn industry for a year or so, probably doing at least one video per week. Think about it. We shouldn't be evaluating the notability of these people like normal actors. --BM 12:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Wow — how insulting can you be towards one of the biggest (positive) contributors to wikipedia? If a 19 year old pron star is churning out "at least one video per week" for 100 weeks straight, that sounds pretty notable to me. If you want to stalk this girl go do it on your own time. —RaD Man (talk) 18:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. BM, what you challenge Cr to find out is unfeasible when it comes to porn actors, who act usually under fake names and try to hide almost every personal details of their lives. By the way, this is not just a matter of personal choice, but a policy strongly inforced by the porn industry. It is generally assumed that part of the "fantasy" involved in the enjoyment of this type of material would be destroyed if the viewer had knowledge of such information: the performances would look unreal if one knew this actress to be a mother with two kids, or this gay actor to be a dedicated husband. My point is: notability standards for porn actors cannot be the same as for, as you say, "normal actors". I concur, nevertheless, that number of video "credits" may not be a good one either. Could number of personal websites ("shrines" and the like) be considered a reasonable measure for porn notability? vlad_mv 21:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. RaD, I can be a lot more insulting, since so far I haven't been insulting at all. By the way, Nautica Thorn was indeed a stripper. But my point is that these actors are so lacking in notability that none of the usual information about them is available and verifiable. In fact, I'd propose the "Birth date test" for biographical notability: if it is impossible to find out the actual name and birthdate of a person from verifiable published sources, or any personal details, then that person is probably not notable enough for the Wikipedia. The publicists for the porn companies frame these people as "movie stars", and apparently some people are willing to buy into this framing, but these people are essentially faceless, history-less, nameless, pawns of the porn movie producers, and completely unnotable as individuals, with very rare exceptions. But Wikipedia doesn't need to fall for this. --21:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. BM, I still stick to the above line of defense. We have to use different notability standards for porn actors and actresses. Knowing one's birthday does not apply here, though I'm not really sure what could possibly apply. As I said, I'm making a point on a broader discussion: I will abstain from voting on this particular matter, because I am not prepared to establish in a definite way whether this person is really notable. vlad_mv 22:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Vlad MV. Radiant! 13:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep barely, so to speak. — RJH 17:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. 100+ movies would reach tens of thousands of people. That is notable. Johntex 02:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- CommentThere are a lot of interesting points being raised in this discussion. I would like to comment on several:
- I don't think we need turn away from Google as a barometer. We routinely use Google a as measure of the fame of computer related topics, which are similarly biased towards high Google scores. Likewise, we know that the failure to get Google hits on a notable person from a developing nation is not a conclusive negative result. What we need to do is establish some topic-specific guidelines. For example:
- N hits on a topic/person in a country with low internet usage
- 4N hits on a topic/person in a country with high internet usage
- 8N hits on a topic/person related to computers
- 8N hits on a topic/person related to pornography
- 10N hits on a topic/person related specifically to the internet, etc...
- I don't think we should try to compare the level of effort or talent or skill or hard work between fields so much as we should try to look for what is notable within a field. For example, it could be said that just working in the porn industry for a year or two to produce 100-200 movies is not much of an accomplishment. But it doesn't take any longer than that to run for Mayor, or write a few comic books, or discover a few beetles (for a field biologist). We should judge these people against others in their industry. What percentage of all full-time musicians meet our criteria for inclusion? Perhaps we should try to profile a similar percentage of porn stars. I can tell you right now that will be a big percentage.
- I don't think a "Birth Date test" is appropriate in this case. Surely we would not pull an article on a famous person from the 1800's because of uncertainty over the year they were born. We would not rule out a fictional character from a novel on that basis either. Similarly, the special characteristics of this industry mean that a publicized birthdate is not a common barometer of how important (or not) they are to their field. Johntex 02:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent point, Johntex. I think we can all agree that a porn actor/actress/movie is not inherently notable. So the question is, what makes a person notable within the field of porn? I think the amount of fans a person has would be representative. Also being represented in the media in another field than porn would help. Radiant! 13:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think we need turn away from Google as a barometer. We routinely use Google a as measure of the fame of computer related topics, which are similarly biased towards high Google scores. Likewise, we know that the failure to get Google hits on a notable person from a developing nation is not a conclusive negative result. What we need to do is establish some topic-specific guidelines. For example:
- Keep. ComCat 02:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for orgasmic growth. ElBenevolente 03:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. — J3ff 00:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. SγωΩηΣ tαlk 12:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. [2] --Haham hanuka 14:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep 100 films is quite an achievement. She's earned her fame -- Longhair 15:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep She earned her fame -- Darwinek 16:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Gilgamesh he 16:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, despite nominator squeamishness - David Gerard 23:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You know, David, it's not that hard to make a vote without making a personal attack. Radiant! 10:21, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A distinct member of a distinct industry.
- Delete: pr0ncruft. Another product of the sex industry assembly line. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, porncruft. JamesBurns 11:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no harm in it staying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Knowledge encompasses alot of things not just intellectual topics. There are plenty of articles similar to this one that have remained untouched. Vincent Gray 15:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and there have been plenty of others that have been deleted. This is not encyclopaedic material. Leanne 23:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
