Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libby Hoeller (second 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 of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and it's probably not advisable to have an article about her according to WP:LIVING. There's already been a decision not to publish the real name of an internet pornography personality, Jordan Capri and furthermore, Libby Hoeller never intended to become famous for internet pornography. Also, reliable sources are absent, and verifiablility is a serious problem, as shown on the talk page. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. Brian G. Crawford 23:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The talk page has a proposed move tag on it. What is the story with the progress of that proposed move? I don't think that anything has happened to the talk page since Vossman actually put ([1]) the tag there. DarthVader 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Where are you going to get sources? This isn't the one that actually commited suicide, right? Kotepho 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakest possible keep There is a paragraph about her in A NATION OF VOYEURS - HOW THE INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE GOOGLE IS CHANGING WHAT WE CAN FIND OUT ABOUT ONE ANOTHER - AND RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD, The Boston Globe, 2003-02-02, Neil Swidey; basically says striptease, videos to boyfriend, boyfriend puts them on the internet, and what college she dropped out of, and going through the old AFDs mentions on the Jimmy Kimmel show and Howard Stern. Kotepho 02:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, arguably the most notable of unwitting internet porn stars. Her videos were mentioned on Howard Stern and Jimmy Kimmel. Stop AfDing this, please. Also, "Libby Hoeller" is not her real name, so the nom has no reason to be concerned about this one in that aspect. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you no sense of decency, sir? Brian G. Crawford 04:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indecency would be plastering her real name in this AfD. Still, the answer? Nah. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From what I've read it's pretty much her real name ("Libby" being an informal version) and that her aunt of the same surname who is a lawyer has issued cease and desist letters to some websites publishing the videos. Of course, that's just from a quick survey of the internet in the last few minutes, and the info is probably far from reliable... so...
        • Indecency is not very relevant. She was stupid. That's life. You live with it. If she were (for example) a rape victim one might have a good argument, but it really was her own stupidity and her jerk of a boyfriend that brought this about. (Note, I'm saying that and still voting delete below) JoshuaZ 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Her name is similar, but this is not it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I have concerns about verifiability and notability. --kingboyk 04:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete Verifiability seems easy from things like the Boston Globe article and others. However, this seems not notable to me. Ok, so she did something dumb, her boyfriend was an ass, and then she got 15 minutes of unfortunate fame. That doesn't make her notable. Everyone gets their 15 minutes whether they enjoy it or not. Her 15 minutes are up. JoshuaZ 05:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Changing my deletion to weak per Jeff's argument that she meet WP:WEB (still going with delete because WP:WEB is a guideline). JoshuaZ 14:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cache of the Boston Globe mention. Also, a comment at a blog shows a German article Der Spiegel article about her. Seems like this has little in th way of verification issues, and may very well meet WP:WEB anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not really an internet celebrity with only 3,000 Ghits [2] --Astrokey44 06:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominating something for deletion without discussing your concerns with the editors of the page first is easy, but in my book, it's mean. Look at Talk:Libby Hoeller, there is a discussion going on there on how to make an appropriate article on this subject. Mangojuice^talk 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're calling me "mean" while voting to keep this article? That's completely laughable. This article is predicated on meanness. Brian G. Crawford 14:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete virtually empty article about a person whose sole claim to fame was that someone exploited her. Honestly, there is so little verifiable information about this person that the article doesn't even make stub status. Just zis Guy you know? 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Who are you to decide whats notable and whats not. I know this is an age old debate but theres articles about her and plenty of web pages (search google). I know google isn't the 'end all' decider of things but I still think that makes it notable enough to keep. If you are going to remove this you may as well remove all the other internet celebritys. PrettyMuchBryce 04:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if not speedy delete. Being humiliated on the internet doesn't inherently make someone notable. Fails WP:BIO, and has no possible avenues for meaningful expansion. JDoorjam Talk 22:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a complex subject and I don't know if this is the proper place to fight it out. Eventually, I suppose, this particular page should be turned into a rd to Internet embarrassments or some such. I'm not sure that there's anything particularly notable about one otherwise-average person whose personal indiscretions have earned her her 15 minutes. Indeed, given the general stupidity and carelessness of the human race we may find that this kind of story will become depressingly common (if it does not already threaten to do so). An article may well be appropriate about the general subject of indiscreet images circulated on the net by false friends. If and when such an article is written, this material should be available to editors. My preference now is to Move to workpage until such time as sources can be tracked down and the article fleshed out. It's just foolish to bury the content in the deleted tables. John Reid 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is currently uncited and has been for quite a while now under its various forms. Until such a piece can be cited correctly, the article should be deleted. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 06:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject is notoriously and verifiably notable, with mentions on Jimmy Kimmel Live and the Howard Stern Show as well as The Boston Globe. Silensor 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. And change to Libby Hoeller Videos because the person is NOT significant but the videos ARE. --vossman 13:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Myles Long 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough for Wikipedia. bbx 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, fairly well known on the internet, it is likely this is just another page that someone on Wikipedia wants to delete because it's "mean."--Josh 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-per Josh The Republican 00:25, 3 May 2006 (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.