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 Well... this is naturally a very hard close, and I ask everyone to read through this before making any judgment calls about this close. Going by “votes” it’s split right down the middle (maybe one or two going one way or the other), so that’s not the basis for this close. You see, there are four camps of users in this debate. The first is requesting deletion because the subject is not notable. The second is those saying the article should be deleted as a result of the WP:BLP issues evident, mainly the subject requesting deletion. The third group is those saying the article should be kept in spite of the BLP issues, and the fourth group is saying that despite the BLP claims, Jolie has sufficient notability where the subject of the article requesting deletion is too famous to warrant it. The first and third camps (“Doesn’t pass WP:PORNBIO” and “But regardless of her desire for privacy, her career was public.”) are relatively minor in size, so it becomes really a question of which is right, the second or the fourth, as well as the consensus reached.

The second camp wants the article deleted in the spirit of the BLP policy, which is certainly valid. The subject said she does not want it affecting her life negatively, which is what said policy tries to keep from happening on this encyclopedia. As Durova stated, “The difference to Wikipedia's completeness is trivial; the difference to her life is enormous.” This is certainly true, we have to realize that Wikipedia plays a major role in the lives of those that are notable, for better or worse. Consequently, the fourth camp says that despite the request, the subject is notable beyond simple means. That creates a different question: How notable does one have to be to usurp BLP? Certainly if John McCain requested deletion then it would be impossible to do, as he’s very encyclopedic. However, if John Leovich were to (be alive and) request deletion, his notability is just barely of encyclopedic worth, and deletion of the biography wouldn’t be an issue. Is Jolie McCain notable or Leovich notable? obviously most bios are in between, which causes the grey area problem. She was a penthouse pet, which while nice, I don’t think anyone would say that’s Britannica-worthy. Now, is there anything defamatory in the bio? No. Does that matter according to the BLP policy? No. Is she suddenly going to become world-famous as a result of this bio being gone from the site? No.

This is where administrative discretion comes in. Any admin could just say "no consensus" and walk away, but the concerns over how the BLP policy applies will still be there, as will the debate over how notable you need to be to qualify for no article deletion. It comes down to WP:NPF in a way. While she is a public figure, technically, she is relatively unknown, and as a result bios such as this should be treated with care. So, if there is no consensus on what to do with the article, what does our desire to not cause harm to those we have an entry on ask of us? It is not stated specifically one way or the other, but removal of an article that fails to attain consensus where the subject has requested deletion is, I believe, a great start. Now, I could care less whether or not Jolie has an article on here; this close is based on what BLP means not just to the encyclopedia that we know, but to the encyclopedia the world knows. If a barely notable person requests deletion, and there is no consensus on what to do, what happens? Well, under the concept of basic human dignity, the article, sans proof of there being strong notability, should be deleted.

I definitely looked at this AfD for a while, and feel that this is the best option for Wikipedia and the subject in question. If you have an issue with the close (I imagine many will both love and hate this close), then discuss with me before you get angry at it. If enough complain about the close then I’ll self-DRV, though I truly believe this is the correct close. My close is based both on the reading of the AfD and, more importantly, our policy on living people. Like I said above though, if you have a problem, then talk to me about it. I'll try and explain my reasoning, though I hope that I did so above.

Close: no consensus, default to delete. Wizardman 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Jolie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It has become a detriment to her work environment and her personal life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaty2 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Keep I am a little confused, but it appears that you are claiming she wants it removed. If there are any inaccuracies, we certainly want to fix them, but if the article is accurate (and no claim is made otherwise) then I am not sure what the criteria for deletion is. Also, we have no way to verify your claim that you "represent" her. Being an encyclopedia, I don't think we can delete an otherwise accurate and balanced article solely because it is inconvenient for the subject. Speedy keep for lack of criteria in an otherwise good faith nomination. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the appropriateness of the request, we still should consider the merits of the AFD. They key question here as with most AFD, is is the subject notable? It doesn't matter how good the article is, if the subject is not notable then it should go. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the merits, the article is clearly within policy and she is clearly notable. See below. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is sourced and indicates that the subject is notable. If the subject of the article wishes this article deleted, I do not think an AfD discussion is the proper place to bring this article. Maybe someone can point you to the correct place to raise this concern, Khaty2. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to BLP, the AFD is the place to discuss it. We do handle biographies of living people very carefully so we don't harm anyone with inaccuracies, but this article seems to be well within policy. WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help has info for people who want to have their own article deleted, although I am not sure it will help much. I have to admit that I am against with the idea of deleting an article ONLY because the person it covers wants it deleted, purely on principal. While I try to empathise, Wikipedia's role is document facts that can be verified only, not to decide who it helps or hurts. I am sure that MANY non-living persons would also like to have their articles deleted. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you, Pharmboy. I am new here. I thought we use AfD to decided if the subject is notable and if the article is sourced. The link you gave also contains Wikipedia:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. This indicates that Wikipedia does consider the privacy of the subject. Using only notability and sourcing, I think the article should be Kept. But if the subject's privacy is also considered, this complicates the matter. I therefore change my Keep to No opinion. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment from my limited experience, that is usually referring to victims of crimes who are still living. We do add some extra sensitivity in bios of crime victims but in this instance, we have someone who posed nude in a magazine, won a notable award of that magazine, then had a paid website with photos of herself. Privacy can't really be an issue if her lack of privacy is purely due to her own choices. This isn't a singular incident, it was a long term career choice. She appears to be changing careers (my guess). If the change becomes verifiable, then it could be added to the article for accuracy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I agree with Pharmboy's assessment. I have seen incidents in the past where someone is justified in having their article deleted, but these are few and far between and almost always involving an event that was not of their own control. If every person who wanted the negative information generated through their own personal choices to conveniently disappear, I'm afraid we would have to install one of those "Now Serving" electronic signs. Trusilver 06:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What sources? The only two I see are a webarchive of her old website, which is clearly not a reliable secondary source and lukeisback which as I understand is not a reliable secondary source either. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep also. Though I have to take issue with the statement that this is all her own choice--that's just way too easy. But regardless of her desire for privacy, her career was public. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her career may have been public, but that doesn't mean she was notable Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She doesn't meet the WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO notability standard. I usually don't bother with porn bio afd's (its not my area of expertise), but I am extremely sensitive to requests for anonymity. So even if the nominator's basis for the deletion request is unknown, I would err on the side of deltion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - This article has already been the subject of one AfD which resulted in a keep. The subject's wishes that the article be removed are not a valid reason for its deletion. Changed position, see below. Trusilver 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have a link to this previous afd? Also, none of the Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria apply to this afd. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, the pains of dual monitors. I had another AfD open at the same time and got my facts crossed. Trusilver 03:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Not mentioned in secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete "subject's" supposed wishes aside Ginger Jolie fails the reliable sources, verifiability, and notability criteria. She hasn't won substantial awards in the industry or had any important/significant impact. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pet of the month qualifies under wp:pornbio alone. see the other sources added and info below. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't appear to understand the notability guidelines then. Winning a major award is NEVER enough to make someone notable (and as I said above, it's questionable if pet of the month is a major award, of the year perhaps but of the month?). It's highly suggestive since people tend to write about people who win major awards but in itself it's not enough Please read up on the notability guidelines since it's quite clear on that Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean someone added decent sources to the article (I'll have a look in a second). Okay then. I'll grant you a bit on the notability thing but, unless the "accusations" in the article can be sourced to 3rd party reliable sources I'm still going with delete unless rewritten with everything sourced accordingly. The "subject" could very well have lied in interviews and such which invalidates that stuff as sources to me. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Only 'sources' are a webarchive of her old website, which is clearly not a reliable secondary source and probably shouldn't be used at all and lukeisback, which as I understand is not a great source either and likely doesn't establish notability. Being a Penthouse Pet of the month suggests she could be notable but I don't know if it's really what PORNBIO means when it says "well-known award" (of the year maybe) and in any case, we still need coverage in reliable secondary sources to prove she is notable. If better sources come up I will reconsider but it is intrinsic on those claiming that she is notable to produce them not for me to prove they don't exist. (In any BLP, particularly when the subject has allegedly requested deletion (for those who think this is unfair, I would say the same thing when the subject created the article) we should exercise caution in deciding whether a subject is notable.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do know that an editor is expected to go and look for other sources when participating in an AFD, you can't just rely on the article. The policy is that the subject must be verifiable, not verified. I have added enough sources below to verify. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider it unreasonable that people expect me to research a subject I know absolutely nothing about and have no interest in researching and I'm not even convinced is notable. As I have little or no idea about what reliable secondary sources exist for pornography related bios and the subject is definitely not extremely notable, it would be rather difficult for me to even know where to start. I consider that those editors who repeatedly assert a subject should be required to prove their claims, in the article. In most cases, this would require research in the appropriate resources which I presume someone familiar with the subject or subject matter will know much more about, and will usually involve more then a simple Google search. In this case, since there appear to be many people who have already asserted she is notable, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't 'show me the sources' which proves to them she is notable. As it stands, you've succeeding in unearthing a bunch of stuff, most of which don't appear to be reliable secondary sources and definitely none of them seem to have substantial coverage. As I've said, I'm not saying this subject is definitely not notable, I'm simply saying it's far from proven with all the information I've seen so far therefore I'm leaning towards delete but willing to reassess my position when those who assert she is notable come up with the sources they claim exist. Also you do understand there is a big difference between verifiability and notability right? The fact that she won pet of the month and various other things she did could probably be verified but that still doesn't make her notable in itself. You need coverage in reliable secondary sources for that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She does pass WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO. Being a Penthouse Pet of the Month is generally considered in pornography AfDs to count as an "award from a major pornographic magazine". Epbr123 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? As I said above, I'm not convinced it's what is intended although I'm not familiar with porn AFS. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was involved in the development of WP:PORNBIO, and that is what was intended. Epbr123 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment She also gets 186,000 ghits, and 40,000 image hits. You have to be realistic here, her lack of privacy is not related to her Wikipedia article. She is clearly notable via either WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO. She even has an IMDB Profile and Penthouse is still selling all her DVDs, as are dozens of other stores. Her status as Pet of the Month is easily sourcable. She isn't a crime victim here folks. Her BIO is listed on MANY other websites already, including here, here, here, here (plus an inteview from her, and plenty of lesser bios like here, here, here, here, and her images are available from literally hundreds and hundreds of pays sites. I don't think pity delete votes is conducive to Wikipedia's interests. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key question is how many of those are reliable secondary sources covering her? IMDB isn't (I do hope you are aware of that). For that matter there are plenty of people with IMDB bios which we don't and should never have articles on (indeed the notability guidelines is quite clear on this issue). The other ones appear dodgy to me as well. One of them is a store website. Another one is a image gallery (which is clearly not a reliable secondary source covering her). Also who's voting in pity? I know I am not. I am voting on the premise that notability needs to be proven and the subjects notability hasn't. So far people have brought up a bunch fo irrelevant stuff most of which don't establish her notability. Given this, and the fact that there is added reason to delete the article, I feel we should err on the side of caution until and unless those who keep asserting she's notable, she's notable can be bothered to do their work properly. I've never understood why people waste time with Google hits and other crap which doesn't establish notability and don't just take the time to find what does establish notability. Coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Barely passes WP:PORNBIO since she was a pet of the month. As to the nom's concerns, the article isn't libelous if the information is true, cited, and NPOV. If she wanted privacy she should have used a pseudonym. Themfromspace (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having won pet of the month is very weak IMHO and in any case, having won an award is only suggestive and not proof of notability. Notability always requires coverage in reliable secondary sources. People winning awards tend to be covered in reliable secondary sources but given that pet of the month isn't exactly a major award it seems to me easily possible one could be pet of the month without being notable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, Nil Einne, it might not be such a bad idea for you to go and read WP:PORNBIO, seeing that it's directly relevant to this AfD and such. Not only is her "pet of the month" award proof of notability, its OUTLINED DIRECTLY IN THE POLICY. Trusilver 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO, the articles existence being inconvenient to her is irrelevant. And if she wanted privacy she shouldn't have appeared in porn films. Tatarian (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator sent me an e-mail requesting the article be deleted, and I replied that AFD was the way to go. However this topic passes notability requirements. The fact this individual has appeared in Penthouse creates notability. The fact this person appeared in such publications and other related work is not Wikipedia's problem. Paul Newman spent much of his professional career bemoaning a terrible film called The Silver Chalice that he made early in his career; but he couldn't take it back. OBVIOUSLY, and this I also noted to the nom, if there is anything untrue in this article, or poorly sourced, then under WP:BLP it has to go. But the fact she was in major magazines, worked for Andrew Blake (major name director in the genre) and so forth -- this can be verified. 23skidoo (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you understand our notability requirements? She has to be covered in reliable secondary sources for us to have an article. If she murdered Paul Newman and Andrew Blake she still wouldn't be notable if she's not covered in reliable secondary sources Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perhaps tilting at windmills, but worth stating all the same: this is a human being that some formula has assigned as 'notable' only because she removed her clothes when she was very young and needed money. A bit more mature now, she's had second thoughts and would like to recover personal privacy and dignity. The difference to Wikipedia's completeness is trivial; the difference to her life is enormous. I wish fellow volunteers at this website dedicated half as much concern for encyclopedic completeness at, say, Category:Foxtrots as they do at the biographies of living, exploited, and regretful young women. The photographs can't be un-taken, but we can decide whether to participate in that exploitation or not. Give her what she asks for; she's asking politely. Durova^Charge! 07:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. If only that were true. She's not trying to "recover personal privacy and dignity." She's "removing her clothes" for higher-paying publications now, and just wants to protect her income stream by covering up her lower-budget past. That may make an "enormous diffrence" in her life, but it's a more of a scam than an issue of "dignity." There are a lot of women listed on Wikipedia who fall under your description, but this is someone who, according to the request that started this, remains in the sex trade, and is just trying to polish her image so she'll make more money in it in the future. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova. Let me add that I think the advice Question authority is generally good. So how about if we question the authority of WP's notability rules for porn stars in this case? Steve Dufour (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the subject doesn't object, I have no problem retaining the usual practice. It's been my belief for a year and a half that marginal notability BLP subjects in any field who request removal ought to have their wishes honored. It costs the encyclopedia very little and earns substantial goodwill. Durova^Charge! 07:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a danger of earning "substantial badwill" in this case. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a scary sentence. "We will change our believes in being fair and neutral if it makes someone famous happy". That is censorship, and unless there is a case where genuine harm comes to a genuinely innocent party (ie: child victims, etc.) then we don't delete information. Our role at Wikipedia is to document and source FACTS, not to take sides or help people who do things they later regret. Please note, this is her PR PERSON making the request (see article talk). I can't sit and delete an article because of "pity", regardless of who makes the request. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, what if Paris Hilton came on here tomorrow and 'politely' asked that we expunge everything negative from her article because it's inconvenient to her, would you be up for that too? Again, this isn't someone who innocently became the subject of a crime who gained de facto notability against his or her will. This is an adult who made decisions she's not proud of and now would like them to just 'go away'. Sorry...no. It's not like I'm talking to a new person who doesn't know how things work around here. simply put...we do not remove content just because notable people say "pretty please, would you not publish the bad stuff I did." (period/full stop) What makes it more hilarious is that there is nothing bad in the article, it is a fine example of NPOV. She's not unhappy that there's bad stuff written about her, she's unhappy that there is any evidence of her previous career at all. Trusilver 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are reasonable limits to be applied. Paris Hilton's work in television, film, modeling, and merchandising makes her notability non-marginal. As an objective measure, specialty encyclopedias of television probably have entries about her for her career as the star of The Simple Life. When a conventional encyclopedia lists a person (or reasonably would be expected to), then that person is too notable for courtesy deletion here. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 23skidoo, there are plenty of quality sources here to validate the notability of the subject. JBsupreme (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then add them to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already added some yesterday. And did you know Wikimedia had an image of her just sitting there unlinked? It is now a part of the article as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um you added 2 sources which mention her once and once source with a very brief bio. What we want is non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources (as the notability guidelines explicitly say). It's all very well improving the article and you should be commended for it, but before you add a bunch of stuff which doesn't establish her notability, why don't you add what we need? Non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Or at least in-depth coverage in one reliable secondary source. Then I could 'vote' keep and be done with this discussion. Incidentally, I have myself tried to find what we need. So far I'm coming up zip. There's nothing I could find in Google News and Google is so full of junk it doesn't help much. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (see below) Keep - Plenty of material to the point where she seems to be a well-known public figure. Her actions don't make her Wikipedia notable. She is Wikipedia notable beause of reliable sources writing about her action. Accounting for the concerns listed by her representative, on balance, the article need not be outright deleted to maintain human dignity and privacy needs of the subject. In fact, because of Wikipedia's way treating someone that is fair, Wikipedia is probably the only place she can get a fair shake. -- Suntag ☼ 11:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But where are these reliable secondary sources writing about her? People keep talking about them but no one is producing them. Why is that? Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for not researching the matter correctly. Prompted by Nil Einne, I took another look and realized that I did an incorrect search. On review, this topic doesn't even merit a BLP balancing since there is not enough reliable source material to maintain an article on the topic. The only thing I found was a mention of her name in aPRNewswire. The topic clearly fails notability - it doesn't even come close. Had this AfD been listed based on notability rather than appealing to the hearts of Wikipedians, this would have been another routine deletion. Regrettably, the present thrust pits our desire to improve the encyclopedia against our being human. That is not warranted for this topic and I urge the closer to delete this based solely on the topic failing to meet notability rather than closing based on a BLP balancing. -- Suntag ☼ 02:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Final comment (I hope). The original request came from this request. Make of it what you will. Looks like "**** ******" is trying to move up career wise, to me. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you remove the alleged real (or alternative) name. While it was allegedly revealed by her, per WP:BLP, it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia and it adds nothing to this discussion. If you don't, then I suggest the closing admin blank this discussion whatever the outcome Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I disagree with your interpretation of the policy, the name isn't necessary in this context and I will respect your request. I masked the name, although the original link still exists. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to go through all the ridiculous hand-wringing about her real name, seeing that she has already outed herself elsewhere on Wikipedia. Trusilver 07:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Marginal notability, subject requests deletion. Mr.Z-man 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Jolie was a Pet of the Month, so she satisfies WP:PORNBIO. The bio is sourced. There is no need to delete this bio. AdjustShift (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I fail to see the point of deleting as it relates to privacy. Google her name and see the result. On the other hand a possible motivation is provided here where it says "she 'likes to be in control'". Well, I guess she does. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link WAS provides is not a reliable source. Within that industry model contracts often specify that fictional captions are likely to be written. Nor, for that matter, is the link itself pertinent. We are discussing an adult who has lived with a specific dilemma for years and has long experience with its nuances; it is very likely that she understands it better than those of us who form an opinion in only a few minutes. If we don't 'see the point' in such a short time, that doesn't mean hers deserves to be ignored. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All good points. That's the trouble with these borderline cases. By definition, one can honestly go either way on them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I favor the respectful approach over a paternalistic analysis. Think of Seth Finkelstein and a few others: in a site with finite volunteer time is it really the best use of our energies to retain marginal-value pages despite some subjects fighting very hard to get them deleted, or do we 'reward' ones who resort to sockpuppetry etc. while penalizing those who merely ask politely? If encyclopedic comprehensiveness is the principle at stake, then we gain more overall comprehensiveness by letting this go and redirecting energies elsewhere. There are thousands of species of aphid that don't have a Wikipedia article yet. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think just about notable enough for the "marginal notability" rule not to apply. It also appears that her request for removal is because the article harms her future career in mainstream modelling, rather than genuine privacy concerns. If she was trying a completely different career, then the request would be more reasonable (although I would probably still vote to keep). --Tango (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC) (Changing to full keep given the newly found award nominations --Tango (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Unfortunate Keep I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't responsible for a person regretting their life's activities. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree. If tomorrow, a head of state asks her bio to be deleted from Wikipedia, we are not going to delete it. If a bio satisfies WP:BIO, that bio shouldn't be deleted. AdjustShift (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A head of state is incomparable to this case, and you know it. I see two approaches to the "keepers" at this afd. One seems to be a god-like spiteful approach - "she shouldn't have done porn". This doesn't deserve a response. The second approach originates from two huge misconceptions that some editors have regarding the sub-notability guidelines and the goal of afd discussions.
• Some editors think that if someone meets the applicable notability standard (WP:ATHLETE, WP:PORNBIO, etc.) it automatically requires that there be a Wikipedia article about them. That's wrong. Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically states that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (emphasis added). Additionally, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, which covers the porn sub-guideline, specifically states that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Thus, exceptions should be made even if a person meets the applicable guideline. What better place to apply this exception clause when a person barely meets (if at all) the wp:pornbio standard and requests that the article be deleted?
• Armed with the misconception regarding the use of Wikipedia's notability policy, editors perpetuate this error in the afd discussion. They come to an afd discussion looking to spew the correct wikilinked alphabetical guideline, thinking that an afd discussion is a contest about who knows Wikipedia guidelines the best. That's wrong. An afd discussion is for editors to have a discussion in which they weigh the notability guidelines, their own common sense, and the overall circumstances of the article.
• The totality of all the circumstances clearly point to deletion. She barely meets the guideline (if at all), there's an alleged request for deletion from the person herself, and the deletion most probably won't impede the advancement of civilization. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment So anyone who wants their BIO deleted should get it deleted, in spite of any other policy that exists? PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not. Are you responding to what I said? Cuz (sorry) it seems like you didn't read what I wrote. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not comparing a head of state to this case. If a notable individual wants us to delete her bio, we shouldn't delete it. We don't have the bio of Krista Allen on Wikipedia because she wants her bio on Wikipedia. We have her bio because she satisfies our notability standard. Brewcrewer is wrong to say that Jolie barely meets the guideline. Jolie was a Pet of the Month (satisfies WP:PORNBIO), she has participated in Andrew Blake movies, and appeared in numerous magazines. We have bios of several porn stars like her. And deleting or keeping her bio on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the advancement of civilization. AdjustShift (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The standard I've applied is that if a person has an entry in a traditional encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias, or reasonably ought to, then that person is too notable to obtain courtesy deletion from this one. So the counterexamples: heads of state, Paris Hilton--those would be covered at encyclopedias of politics or entertainment and wouldn't be eligible for courtesy deletion. This individual posed nude for a few magazines when she was barely of legal age to give consent, and upon gaining greater maturity regretted that decision. It's impossible to write a comprehensive biography about her because the only argument for her notability is a short span of time when she removed her clothes for a camera (how much talent does that take? and how important is it, compared to a head of state?). Durova^Charge! 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any argument quickly breaks down if it involves the phrases "advancement of civilization" and "Paris Hilton". EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find this to be an acceptable argument. And while I don't like precedents like this, I don't like the implication of "we will remove your article if you are famous...but not too famous", I am going to research the subject some more and then re-examine my position based on that. Trusilver 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Other than in the case of crime victims who are notable for being a victim only (or very very similar), where is the policy that covers "courtesy deletion"? This is about the nom (Jolie's PR person) wanting it deleted because it helps her career. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In clearly borderline cases of notability like this, I see no reason not to comply with her reasonable request to delete her BLP. Wikipedia loses nothing by omitting this biography. krimpet✽ 23:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think her request to delete her bio is a reasonable request. The bio doesn't say any controversial things about Jolie. And "Wikipedia loses nothing by omitting this biography" is not a good rationale for deleting a bio. I can also say "Wikipedia loses nothing by not omitting this biography". AdjustShift (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Durova and Krimpet. Especially in a borderline case like this, there is no compelling reason not to respect this person's good faith wishes, whether or not they technically have been sent through the precisely proper channel.  Xihr  23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete person of very marginal notability would like their article deleted, seems entirely reasonable to me. RMHED (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mainly per Durova and Krimpet. Seems reasonable to delete this article based on the request. I would also note that it has been suggested (is it policy, I've been away for a while?) that in cases of BLP AFDs being no consensus, the result defaults to delete, as opposed to keep George The Dragon (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable and I don't think that inconvenience is a reason to invoke WP:BLP Captain panda 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Delete The fact that it's not properly sourced after this time, and quite frankly, probably can't be sourced properly to pass notability (and for those saying that being a Playmate Pet of the Month makes her automatically notable, I'd advise to look at WP:BLP1E, makes this a delete to me, with or without the subject's request. And we're not invoking BLP because of inconvenience, we're invoking BLP because she's a living person, and thus falls under the policy, Captain. SirFozzie (talk)

• strong delete Borderline notability and subject wishes it gone. I thought in cases of very little notability , this was the precedent. Mentioned in only 6 WP:RS sources, all penthouse itself, no other sources.[1] Things have been deleted with far more WP:RS in any case. Do we have every model that's ever been in penthouse, regardless of whether they got any other discussion in the press or other things, on here? "Pet of the month" is not notable, not out of all the years penthouse has been going. Maybe if it was 'pet of the year' and she'd been in a lot of other publications too. Sticky Parkin 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've heard two people now suggest that it is precedent to delete the article of someone with borderline notability who wishes it gone, yet I haven't seen any evidence of such past precedent. Can anyone link it? Trusilver 00:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)I've seen it before, but I won't remember unless I break my head (which I can't do at the moment). But if you think it's a sound policy, than go ahead and say so. Editors probably weren't any wiser at the old afd's. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiser? probably not, but they almost definitely went through some or most of the same types of discussions we are going through now to arrive at that decision. I'm just interested in what was said and the rationale of the conclusion. I'm reading up on the rather verbose AfD that George linked now. Trusilver 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply this AFD is one such example George The Dragon (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, among others. Durova^Charge! 02:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading through this, I get the sense that she's borderline notable. Not Paris Hilton notable, and not Me obscure, but borderline. Borderline notability cases go to the subjects wishes, barring any strong reason to not do so. This is a run of the mill centerfold model. Not Paris Hilton. She's asked. Therefore, per Durova and Krimpet and per my own understanding of BLP policy, Delete. ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• She is borderline important/significant, not borderline Wikipedia notable since there is almost zero reliable sources discussing her life. The Ghits seem in part due to Angelina Jolie rather than Ginger Jolie. In any event, they don't represent indpendent reliable source material, but more likely blog puriant interest. This is a straight deletion for failing WP:N. -- Suntag ☼ 02:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We are reasonable people, aren't we? The subject, who is very marginally notable, has asked nicely for us to remove it. I don't see the problem with us doing that. To be honest, I'd rather us not kick up a fuss about it. I echo Durova's reasons above. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Passes PORNBIO, BIO, and WP:N well beyond what I'd consider normal for an AfD'd article. Covered as a model in a major pornographic publication, and there are plenty of quality sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Beyond "I want this aggregate record of secondary coverage gone because I don't like it", there's no reason for this to be here, and I don't think we should be bending over backwards for that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Durova and Krimpet, largely. And per Jimmy Wales, "Wikipedia is not here to hurt people" - Alison ^❤ 01:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we are hurting Jolie by keeping her bio on Wikipedia. The bio doesn't say any controversial things about Jolie. The bio simply provides some basic info about her. AdjustShift (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alison/Jimbo/Krimpet/Durova. Subject has not appeared in a dead-tree-printed-encyclopedia, and (if she requests it) should be removed from ours. Giggy (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, she's notable enough; furthermore, notability is derived directly from her (former) line of work, not the kind of incidental, unwanted attention that we sometimes see in controversial BLPs. Everyking (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. But it's not her former line of work. She's just taking her clothes of for Maxim rather than Penthouse. This is just publicist-driven image-polishing. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been mulling over this all afternoon have come to a conclusion. First, whether people like it or not, Wikipedia is a project that is based on rules. However, as the fifth pillar directly says, these rules are not firm. Wikipedia has long since stood against censorship. Hell, we have withstood untold numbers of special interests and the wrath of Allah to prevent censorship rearing its head in the project. Still... there is precedent for deleting the articles of marginally notable people who request it. And while the subject is notable, WP:PORNBIO is not a suicide pact either, it is only a guideline. My only remaining concern has to do with recreation of this article at a later time, but we can jump off that bridge should we ever get to it. For the time being, I'm going to change my position to delete. Trusilver 02:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:RS §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, articles like that are not a worthwhile addition to the sum of human knowledge. Nobody needs this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Pharmboy. Subject of the article is requesting deletion of verifiable content in order to control her public image for financial reasons. She's not in a different line of work, just a more lucrative tier of the sex worker industry. What next? In an article about a lawyer, should we remove verifiable citations to cases he/she lost, because they don't help earnins potential? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please tone down your comments per WP:BLP? Thanks. George The Dragon (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you talking about? The subject of the article acknowledges being a sex worker, as Wikipedia (and most others) defines the term. The subject's request for deletion is based on her announcement that she's now posing in a classier tier of sex magazines. Big whoop. Note also the announcement on her website that she's not going to automatically refund the "membership" fees people paid to the sexually explicit website she shut down without warning, which to my mind qualifies her as a scam artist as well as a sex worker. Your mileage may vary. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So then the purpose of this article is to punish her for her sins? Kind of like a scarlet letter? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The purpose of the article is not to punish her. I've no problems with the porn stars. Porn stars don't kill anyone, they don't hurt anyone. Porn stars have a job and they do their job. Jolie did what she did in order to earn her living. I've no problem with that. But I have a problem with Jolie requesting her bio to be deleted from Wikipedia so that she could control her public image for financial reasons. Mara Carfagna, the Italian Minister for Equal Opportunity, was a former showgirl and she posed nude on several occasions. Tomorrow if she asks us to erase her past from Wikipedia, are we going to do that? No. AdjustShift (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. The subject of the article wants it deleted not because it is inaccurate, or unverified, or inappropriate, but because she's trying to make the transition from lower-tier "adult model" to higher-tier "adult model" and wants Wikipedia to include only the material her publicist thinks would advance her career. Are we going to review references to bad reviews from a musician's entry if his or her publicist asks? If there's a scarlet letter involved, Ginger Jolie put it on herself, and now wants Wikipedia to airbrush it out of the pictures she authorized when she made money off them. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I am advocating deletion, I am not saying we should cover-up any information. If she becomes notable in the future for whatever she does then the full details of her career should be mentioned in her article. Right now however she does not seem to be notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Except her website says NO SUCH THING, despite your repeated claims that it does - in fact it tells users with active memberships who to contact for account credit or refunds. This really seems like you're being disingenuous - you keep stating something that is verifiably false. Achromatic (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Bilge. If she were honest, she'd simply refund the advance payments she'd taken for services she'd decided not to provide. It's very easy to do. She's got the payment records. All she has to do is issue the credits. That's what honest businesses do. That's wha the law requires, at a minimum. You're making apologies for sleazy disreputable business practices. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stop arguing over the honesty issue? We have no reliable sources making any claims that she had been dishonest and original research that accuses living people of unethical or illegal business practices is really not a great idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - no brainer, the fact that she was a Penthouse Pet makes her notable.--Michael White^T·C 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What are the qualifications to be a Penthouse Pet, besides being a reasonably attractive young woman and be willing to pose nude for publication? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Without some reason to believe that she was an unusual Penthouse Pet, WP:PORNBIO presumes she's notable. This does not relieve us of the burden of meeting the general WP:BIO guidelines, but the article is close enough as it stands to give it time. AfD is for articles that are unsourceable, not unsourced. gnfnrf (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and Question I still keep thinking about this AfD and the ramification of deleting the article. The concerns that I still have are mostly concerning article recreation. What are we going to say to someone who recreates this article and then sees it put up for speedy deletion. "Sorry, we know that she's notable and all, but we are doing some pass blocking for her and since she doesn't want to have an article about her past, we decided that's cool with us." I really don't like the idea of an injunction against creating this article because eventually someone is going to come along and recreate it because she's notable (which she is) and then we are going to be left holding the bag saying..."yeah, we create articles for everyone that's REALLY notable and everyone that's SORT OF notable and doesn't mind us talking about them." Trusilver 17:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Durova and Krimpet, and it seems that there's a lot of bitterness amongst many of the Keep !votes, referring to her as a scam artist. Achromatic (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It reminds me a little of the Bible story about a mob which surrounded an adulterous woman, except that civilization has advanced and instead of shouting “Stone her!” they are shouting “Write a Wikipedia article about her!”  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not exactly. I'm the only person referring to her as a scam artist, and that's because she flat-out says on her website that she's not refunding the payments fools people made in advance for access to the website, and that if they ask their credit card issuer for refunds, as the law allows, the company that handles her credit card billing will mess up their ability to use credit on line. That's a scam; I suppose calling her a "scam artist" is unfair to the more competent scam artists, but who cares about them. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, what? Her site says, and I quote: "If you have an active membership with GingerJolie.com, please contact matt@mattsmodels.com for an appropriate membership credit or refund.", and that doing a chargeback will piss CCbill off (and not unreasonably so - there's a refund mechanism in place, and chargebacks are intended to be used for fraudulent/deceptive behavior, not as a short circuit around the refund process). Achromatic (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit concerned with the BLP side of that epithet. If there has been any court ruling then the proper thing to do is refer to a judgment by its formal name. Otherwise it's simply a slur and ought to be refactored. Durova^Charge! 21:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm equally disheartened with a significant portion of the delete crowd that are (quite intentionally, I have little doubt) blowing off every single keep vote as "well, that person just wants to punish her". As I read it, they all are far more concerned with the censorship aspect of the issues. How about you all try something amazing and assume a little good faith. Sound like a good deal? Trusilver 21:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Trusilver, it is unsupported epithets such as scam artist that raise my concern. Certainly that wouldn't be acceptable as an unsourced assertion in article space, and I see no reason why Wikipedia space or talk space would be an exception. Durova^Charge! 02:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Durova, no many how many times you post the canard that my comments are "unsourced" or "unsupported," it won't make your statement any less false. It's supported by "Ginger's" own statement on her own website that she's not refunding the advance payments users made for access to the porn website she ran, and was the main subject of, until recently, and that her business affiliates will retailiate against peopl who make legitimate complaints to their credit card issuers. Given that you thought it was appropriate to post completely unsourced allegations of dishonesty from convicted felon Rick Ross in the deletion article you created at his request, aren't you being more than a little disingenuous here? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Enchantress, your statements ARE unsourced. Her website states that people with memberships are to contact someone for a refund, in very clear terms. It says nothing about retaliation - I think that almost all merchants online or in the real world would have an issue with someone who used the chargeback process, which is for UNAUTHORIZED, fraudulent, deceptive transactions (and claiming to your bank that that transaction was one of those things, which can have a very real impact on the merchant), merely to step around the refund process. Achromatic (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Durova, my spouse's comments were entirely accurate, and yor response is completely uninformed. If you had bothered, for example, to read the Wikipedia chargeback article, or were familiar with the terms of your own credit card agreements, who would know that the chargeback remedy is available to consumers in any dispute, including failure to provide what has been cotracted for, for whatever reason. In most (probably all) US jurisdictions, simply cutting off services and not automatically providing refunds can be prosecuted (usually civilly, sometimes criminally) under laws prohibiting unfair trade practices. In situations like this, where the business was soliciting orders for long-terms memberships, right up to the point of terminations, impropriety is the standard inference. You really should reconsider your attitude toward those who disagree with you; these knee-jerk, inchoate displays of pique are both uncivil and self-corrosive. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:KEEPCOOL, please, Enchantress. Thank you, Achromatic, for your comment. Regarding courtesy BLPs in general I have a longstanding record of nominating and supporting deletion requests that meet certain objective criteria--criteria which I established well over a year ago precisely to avoid subjective decisions based upon WP:IDONTLIKEHIM or WP:ILIKEHIM. And if you want to retain the page under discussion here, suggest reconsidering the boldface etc.: an angry tone tends to give the impression that a neutral and policy-compliant biography would be difficult to maintain. Durova^Charge! 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither Christian nor anti-porn, so your slur can't apply to me. I just want for a pretty white girl to be treated the same as a poor black man on Wikipedia. This is why we have policies, to insure all living BIOs are treated the same fair way. To question the motives of people who want to KEEP content when there isn't a single claim on inaccuracies, well, is rather in bad faith. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? What on earth would make you think that if this was an equally marginally notable poor black guy making the request that we wouldn't do the same thing? I know I would and I'm offended that you would think that of me. Mr.Z-man 23:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also offended. For the record, I am a Christian and generally anti-porn. I also think Ms Jolie is a sinner, just not an important enough sinner to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing the 'race card' from this hand and returning it to the deck. The world has all to many instances of actual bigotry. This isn't one of them. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Would we delete OJ's article if he said he wanted that part of his past life behind me? She did what she did, passed the threshhold of notability, and therefore, shjould be kept.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 21:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please look at the article's references again. Nothing there is a reliable secondary source which discusses her in a substantial way. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong. This interview alone qualifies, as lukeisback.com is considered wp:rs for porn. See Luke Ford. And this isn't a new link, it was added in December 2007 in the creation of the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh how right you are Wikipedia just wouldn't be the same without this article. It's exactly this kind of article that makes Wikipedia the invaluable resource it is, my those african children must be grateful for the knowledge this article imparts. How Britannica must be kicking themselves that they overlooked this individual, ha! those fools. RMHED (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps the children in Africa will learn that those of us rich enough to own a computer believe that we should treat a pretty white girl no better or worse than a poor black man. That was the point I made above. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "Oh how right you are Wikipedia just wouldn't be the same without this article" - Yes, it would be different as this article would no longer exist... "my those african children must be grateful for the knowledge this article imparts" - Who are "those african children"? and what is their relevance to this discussion? How Britannica must be kicking themselves that they overlooked this individual, ha! those fools. We could use this as ground for deletion on nearly all marginal deletions, this is just a stupid thing to say...90.216.139.52 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't diss the poor african children it would make Jimmy sad, but seriously folks why so much effort to preserve an article about a woman who got her kit off for a magazine. Beyond that what has she done? If that is what counts for notability on Wikipedia then this 'encyclopedia' really is a joke. RMHED (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per Everyking. Meets WP:BIO and given that she is in what amounts to essentially the same line of work currently there's no sane reason for any sort of courtesy deletion. The notion that courtesy deletion should apply to a notable individual because they are in a slightly different segment of the same industry is simply not reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Durova and Krimpet. Just because photographs of her have been in some adult magazines and has appeared in some adult movies (For all we know it could be a minor role) doesn't make her notable. Bidgee (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing specially notable here. Moondyne 01:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At most marginally notable if even that. She does want an article so we should delete. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please check this out. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say that I agree with those sentiments, especially without any explanation as to why material so well-covered itself wouldn't be considered reliable sources for the subject of its coverage. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion about the reliability of lukeisback.com myself. However, I do think the Mr. Wales's opinion is something that could be considered in this AfD discussion. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's no reasoning cited, just "I don't think it should be there anymore", and that doesn't really help the discussion any, regardless of who it comes from. Do you have something to add? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything about the article's using lukeisback as a source. The article fails with it or without it. Besides it was already mentioned that porn models sometimes say untrue things about themselves in the course of their work, so what value does an interview on a porn-related site have? Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? Politicians say untrue things about themselves in the course of their work, so what value does an interview on CNN have? We're not here to aggregate truth; we're here to aggregate coverage. It's not our place to determine what truth is; all we can do is look at sources that are generally considered reliable in their field, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that this particular one isn't. Someone's unsourced and unexplained opinion doesn't change that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there was a little known right (or left) wing political figure and the only secondary source for his article was an interview of him on a right (or left) wing website that wouldn't say much for his notability. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't place any greater weight on Jimbo's opinion than I do anyone else's here. Jimbo has never represented himself as the all powerful leader of Wikipedia (and rightly so), and to be honest, there are quite a few editors on here whose opinion I value far greater than his. However, I think it would be wise to consider what he says about lukeisback as a source. For some mind-boggling reason, lukeisback has gotten some kind of precedent for being a notable source for porn articles. While in any other article, a source like this would be laughed right out of an AfD discussion. While this is not the place to set new policy on how we cite pornographic articles (that just sounds wrong...), we should at least be keeping it in mind. Trusilver 04:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steve Dufour. Luke Ford runs a gossip blog about porn stars, for cryin' out loud; it is totally inappropriate as a reliable source. If it is appropriate, then what isn't?  Xihr  07:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An inappropriate source would be a gossip blog that hadn't received attention and was known for being as such. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions. Would it be correct to say that "Ginger Jolie" is not the subject's actual birth name, but a pseudonym adopted by her for her work in the erotic world? Is she working outside the erotic world under a name other than "Ginger Jolie"? And if so, how could an article about "Ginger Jolie" affect her in her non-porn life as long as it didn't mention her other name? I think this should be clarified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answering my own questions, it appears that Jolie is now using a different name for non-porn work. However, I suppose that some people might be able to associate Jolie with her other name by recognizing her picture in Ginger Jolie. If there is more to the story, other editors can supply the additional information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has tried to remove another user name which had asked for deletion of the article in 2007 and claimed to be the subject. Briefly during the AfD the article contained a claim that Ginger Jolie was working under another name in 2007. The source was a site containing the other name and some images, but apparently no mention of the name Ginger Jolie. Similar claims could easily be added in the future - and stay if a reliable source is found. Adding claims based on comparing images would of course be original research. But if the subject or her PR person is worried that the article will lead to published real or alleged connections between "Ginger Jolie" and other names then it seems to be with good reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She has been on the help desk asking for the article to be removed, introducing herself under her other name and saying she wants to move on with her life. She was only in her teens or early twenties when she did this stuff. Is it going to be recorded for posterity, or be at the top of google, when the only pseudo-WP:RS about it is 6 mentions by Penthouse itself? [2] Sticky Parkin 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, several new citations have been added, and there has always been more sources than Penthouse. Even Hustler is cited, as well as her video career and another interview. The article is much better sourced than before this AFD started. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per krimpet. naerii 15:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I was not aware that we were using Luke Ford blogs as sources for WP:BLP articles. Shouldn't these all be removed from all the Wikipedia articles straight away? JBsupreme (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they should. Giggy (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Surely the subject's concern for her new line of work is amply addressed by ensuring the article doesn't mention her 'other' professional name unless her pseudonyms become linked in RS of course. Unless there is information which is false and/or unsourced (in which case it gets removed per the usual BLP approach) I don't see that the core of the article itself - which rests on her being a Pet, which is notable IMHO - needs to go. MadScot (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment She was also an AVN awards nominee in 2006 for "Best Tease Performance" so it was hardly a low profile career she had. MadScot (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

second comment I've seen at least one ref online that she appeared in Playboy Special Editions under her [redacted] new professional name. If that's so - will be searching - it does kind of spoil the whole point of the deletion request? MadScot (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Additional - two 2004 Playboy SEs have a model under the [redacted] name, as does one in 2003. Also a Playboy video released in 2003.[reply]

Perhaps this would be better spent on addressing the issues of before the AfD rather than digging up information on a borderline-notable porn star's old moniker that she would prefer be laid to rest? Wikipedia is supposed to care about the anonymity of the authors, and respect the good-faith requests of people in the WP:BLP policy updates. How does this information do anyone any good?  Xihr  05:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't do any good, unless people want to bring up the "Oh noes poor woman she wants to change her life" bit as a reason for keeping it, which they have; its a point that should be refuted if it can be; I mean, even in the warped world where we delete subjects on reasonable requests, why should we do that if she doesn't seem interested in changing? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is precisely the point. The subject is marginally notable, so whether the article is included or not makes no difference whatsoever to the overall quality of Wikipedia. This person is in good faith asking for the entry to be removed; her precise reasoning is not relevant. Modern BLP-related policies allow this as long as it doesn't degrade the quality of the encyclopedia (and should it come to that she could always get a laywer to write a C&D notice, which would surely cause it to happen in a case like this). Digging up dirt on her or her past and current activities -- the latter of which, by the way, completely defeating the purpose of those policies -- seems completely antithetical to these consensus decisions: namely, if it's not a big deal, and she wants it to go away, it should go away. I fail to see the grand purpose that is served by keeping this utterly marginal article, other than sticking it to someone who'd rather not have it be stuck to (if you'll forgive the pun) -- especially since it is irrelevant to the quality of the encyclopedia. It seems completely like common sense to me. Who cares, so why keep it?  Xihr  08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP quotes Actually, WP:BLP says Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. even when requested by the subject of the article. It doesn't have special allowances for requests, nor a policy on your faux quoted it is irrelevant to the quality of the encyclopedia (a google search shows that phrase isn't used on any page on wikipedia). Please show us where this "modern" policy is, so we can all be enlightened. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject passes WP:PORNBIO due not only to Pet of the Month but also being nominated for, at present count, four other awards which come from a notable award granting organization. That basically sums up my Keep vote. Now to comment: No matter how many times Durova pulls out the "she's more mature now" card out, that doesn't apply. For one, she was past the age of consent during that time. That age isn't vague. It's a big solid line. It's not like when some parents don't let their kids watch horror movies because they don't feel their child is ready. She was of legal age to make her own decisions. And secondly, I haven't seen anything from either the subject or her management that leads me to believe that she considers her past "dirty" or lacking in respect. It's a career move. If she would like to move on in her life and change direction (albeit not that drastic of a change from adult modeling to modeling for Maxim), that's fine. But that's not a valid reason for deletion. She's not seeking privacy here since she's continuing a career in the public spotlight as a model. Dismas|^(talk) 09:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right; that's not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is that our policy allows closing admins to consider the wishes of the subject in deciding whether to keep marginally notable biographies. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the recently found award nominations have now pushed her clear of being borderline notable. 217.134.73.4 (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment to expand on what the anon said above. She apparently has 4 AVN awards which are about the highest awards there are in her industry. That's pretty notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • query Are you sure about the awards. When I searched I found one nomination in 2006, but no awards actually listed by AVN (though I did see here referred to as 'AVN award winning' I couldn't confirm an award). (I still think she passes notability, but don't want people basing this on a mistaken identification of awards). MadScot (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I'm just basing it on what has been added to the articles. I'm at a cluster machien right now so googling for them really isn't an option. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Sorry, didn't see those when I looked; only a 25% google success rate, pretty poor. MadScot (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take what an article says on face value, anyone can add anything and we are not a reliable source.:) Her awards/nominations have not been considered major enough to be mentioned in any reliable source- come to mention it, no reliable sources have considered her worth mentioning apart from penthouse itself- who are not really a secondary or independent source for someone who was one of their own models at the time. Sticky Parkin 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from sources she got 4 AVN nominations but didn't win any of them. The 3 in 2006 were for the same film. The list [3] of 2006 AVN nominations is 43 pages with around 1400 nominations in around 95 categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dismas; the subject is obviously notable and the arguments being put forth by Durova and company do not apply. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Keep based on policy, and delete based on what we should do. See Biographical optout Zginder 2008-10-20T21:14Z (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.