Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatum Reed (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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tatum Reed

This article was previously deleted at this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned a later CSD G4 deletion in light of new information, and the recreation's expansion. Please see the DRV before commenting here. This matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment— These porn star AfD discussions go on continuously on Wikipedia; somebody goes to quite a bit of trouble producing some rather well written articles; somebody values this material (I enjoy pornography as much as the next guy- actually I'm not sure that's true since I've not done a careful study on enjoyment of pornography - but there clearly is a constituency for this material). Is it time for a sister wiki, perhaps titled Wikiporn? We could get great sponsorships and might subsidize the main sites. Williamborg (Bill) 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC) And, although humorous, this is a semi-serious question.
  • There's a whole sub-industry of the Internet pornography industry that is devoted to Googlebombing porn actresses. Moreover, that someone has "gone to a lot of trouble" is not really relevant. Editors have written lengthy, well-wikified, articles about completely new made-up languages, before now. The appropriate things to discuss here are whether this person satisfies WP:BIO, and the appropriate things to be looking at are whether the coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle constitutes a non-trivial published work, and suchlike. The place to propose new Wikimedia Foundation projects is Meta. Uncle G 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. The person is not a porn star - she's a $4,000 prostitute, as her site clearly indicates, and the movies are incidental to the sex-for-pay business. She fails PORNBIO, her business fails CORP, and she fails BIO absolutely. This person also contacted me after I closed the first deletion, admitting that the article was part of an orchestrated campaign of self-promotion, and asking me to reverse m decision. There was concsensus to delete in the first AfD, and nothing new have come up. We shouldn't even be here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The first AFD discussion didn't make any mention of sources at all. The article on her in the San Francisco Chronicle was not discussed, for example. The existence of multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the subject indicates notability, and two such works are cited by this article. Uncle G 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh... the SFChronicle is trivial - it's her restaurant picks for crying out loud, the other two are from PORNBIO land, and in the spirit of PORNBIO I would require 100, not "multiple". The Bio is OR, anyway - there just aren't reputable independent published sources detailing her biography that we could cite here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The Chronicle article has a paragraph of good, solid, biographical information at the start. The AdultFYI article has similar content, from which we can know that the subject studied ballet, is married, teaches Pilates, and so forth. Are you saying that the second isn't a reliable source? On what grounds? This person has a lot more information published about her, by a reliable source, than most porn actresses. Most porn actresses are wholly unverifiable, because the only biographical information for them is the potted blurb that comes along with the pictures — which is almost always a complete fiction created by some editor somewhere. Even the names aren't reliable. Whereas this person has interviews in newspapers. Uncle G 09:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, ballet. Not reliable b/c likely promotional, as is everything in the porn world, down to the googlebombing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • "Most porn actresses are wholly unverifiable" - hehe!! mass AfD, anyone? :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments on previous AfD and Crzrussian. Yanksox 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Here's the thing. I don't often visit wikipedia, unless Stephen Colbert has a new grudge against the bear population or I'm in need of some really trivia information. But I thought that pretty much anything that is relevant in pop culture could have a place here? No? I mean, CrazyRussian seems to think not, but so what? One guy gets to make the rules?! And on what grounds? That Tatum Reed isn't really a porn star but a prostitute who in some way is using wikipedia to score dates?! Well, that makes total sense, because when I'm really lonely, the first place I turn to is an online encyclopedia! Listen, if you want to argue that porn stars shouldn't be on here, that's one thing. But I don't even think Tatum is simply a porn star. She's currently having a documentary shot about her life and her business and completely blurs the line between pornography and art. And as a last grasp of an arguement, I thought I look up another porn star and see if she's on here...so I typed in "Bella Donna." And you know what came up? THIS: Bella Donna No, that's not Bella Donna, the porn star...that's Bella Donna, the COMIC BOOK CHARACTER! If we're going to allow fictious, z-rated comic book characters on wikipedia, can't we leave Tatum alone?!Thefoxymoron 06:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion, and consensus, based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, guides the decision. Crzrussian is now addressing the sources available, and you should be, too. None of your rationale has any bearing, because none of it actually addresses the article and our policies and guidelines. Your personal opinion of the subject, what the Bella Donna article is about, and what you think of comic book characters, all have no weight as arguments. To make an argument, please cite sources to show that an article that satisfies our WP:BIO criteria can be made. Cite a biography (not an autobiography) of this person from which we can know that she is an Episcopalian, for example. Uncle G 09:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Tatum Reed sites [sic] Thorstein Veblen (...) as her primary artistic influences is a classic though. ~ trialsanderrors 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that line is choice. Almost worth BJAODNing the article for. Wait, no, not even close. Mystache 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I'm not convinced that anything has changed since the first AFD. She's still not notable and the article is still an ad. Mystache 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being the owner of a film production company, a porn star, and a pop culture critic is plenty notable. Sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle more than meet our standards for reliablility. Granted, this article does need a lot of work, but that is cause for improvement by way of editing, not deletion. RFerreira 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the Crazed Russian. Eusebeus 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but not per WP:PORN BIO, which CrazyRussian correctly notes she doesn't meet, not really being primarily a porn star, but through the more accepted WP:BIO, which she does. "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)". The San Francisco Chronicle, AdultFYI, and Luke Ford are not the New York Times, but they do meet those requirements. Good team work by several people here. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. I agree with Crazed Russian-she is a high-priced prostitute. I am aware of this person through other people and she is the queen of self-promotion. Should not be on Wiki.

--Nlsephiroth 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC) "

• Keep " freedom of choice, sex has always been an issue and always will be. Yes Tatum Reed does promote herself, but so does anyone who owns a business. Unsigned comment by User:Starbuck78 bbx 06:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC).

• Keep Reluctantly. Tatum Reed is indeed a minor celebrity in the San Francisco Bay area. There are a number of independant articles about her written and easily accessed. Her being a prostitute (as well as a porn actress) is immaterial. I think she is just well-known enough of prostitute to make the cut. --Trick 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per AnonEMouse.  ALKIVAR™ 18:44, 4 September 2006 (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.