Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chessie Moore (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chessie Moore

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO, and has only received trivial coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous discussion was "Keep" with only one Delete vote and notability does not expire. Appearing in over 200 films certainly seems notable. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can find proof of her winning some awards or significant coverage to provide notability Corpx (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ENT. Yes, she seems to fail WP:GNG [1], but she is known all over the internet [2]. So I headed over to WP:BIO ("A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards") to see what other ways an article might evidence notability if the GNG is not met. She fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, WP:ATH, WP:CREATIVE, WP:DIPLOMAT, and tickles at WP:PORNBIO, but seems to pass WP:ENT in that she "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". Not meeting other inclusion criteria does not matter as long as she meets WP:BIO through WP:ENT. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator agrees with this interpretation, Michael. But instead of withdrawing the nomination, he is seeking to change the rules:[3] This is what comes of allowing editors to take it easy, stop actually working on articles, and instead dream up their own Original Research-based definitions of "notability". Everyone has so much fun making up "rules", they don't notice the bias-- accidental usually, but sometimes, as here, intentional-- they enable... Dekkappai (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I responded there. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails WP:PORNBIO and a large number of non-notable films don't change that. Also, I don't see the nom as agreeing. I see him trying to prevent the "look how many movies he/she was in" dodge from being used to preserve articles about non-notable actors/actresses.....like Ms. Moore. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, guideline is guideline until a consensus of editors change it. It says what it says. Disagreeing with the text of WP:ENT does not make it ipso-facto a dismissable guideline. Until such time as WP:ENT and WP:GNG include a caveat that says "This guideline does not apply to actors who are preceived to have ever worked be in the adult entertainment industry or who have appeared in what are perceived to be non-blockbuster films", I will interpret them exactly as they are written, and am unhappy that you feel this use of guideline to gauge notability to be a "dodge". Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of having solid guidelines like WP:PORNBIO is so that we dont have to rely on subjective stuff like "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" and "I've heard of her" etc. If she has such a large fan base etc, surely she warrants significant coverage from reliable sources, right? Corpx (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Corpx. You summed up what I've been trying to say very nicely. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No guideline is "solid"... as they are mutable and subject to change and revision. I did not write WP:ENT nor its text "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" nor "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"... portions achieved over many years of discussion which were written to determine notability in cases where the WP:GNG is not met. Failing one does not dismiss the other. Genre-specific sources may be considered for genre specific topics. Hustler does write about international politics, and Washington Post does not write about adult stars. Guideline allows sources and notability to be considered in context to what is being sourced and what is being asserted. Before this AfD I had never heard of her. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I wish to state that I personally do not watch "adult films" nor read "adult" publications, as I find such to be boring and repetitive. However, others however do both, making adult entertainment a rather large international and domestic industry. Not liking it does not make it go away. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously the nom agrees that Michael's interpretation above allows this article to pass, or he wouldn't have rushed over to comment that the rules need to be changed to prevent this article from passing. What the nom disagrees with is the idea that this subject should have an article, so he thinks the rules should be adjusted to fit that opinion. To me, actions like this show the subjective/biased/POV nature of these self-made rules. Dekkappai (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails PORNBIO. No verified evidence she satisfies any other notability guideline. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. No indication subject meets the GNG. The borderline personal attacks on the nominator are quite inappropriate; the keep !voters making them are trying to take advantage of a recent, nonconsensus change in the text of WP:ENT that was clearly not intended to affect pornographic performers. The idea that simply performing in any number of pornographic productions was enough to demonstrate notability was repeatedly rejected by consensus; virtually every performer whose article was deleted in the last year or so had "multiple" credits. The attacks are just mean-spirited wikilawyering. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the good editors here delete things and write rules, while us pesky Wikilawyers waste our time writing articles... Thanks for putting things in perspective. Dekkappai (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.