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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vicca[edit]

I did not prod the article, because it is my feeling that it would be a contested prod. Vicca apparently only weakly meets WP:PORN BIO, having only performed in around 70 films, although she is a Penthouse Pet. The article contains absolutely no reliable sources after having been around for a year, with at least two active contributors adding and removing text from the article, and after having had a request for citations up for several months. There is no verified assertion of notability (even the Penthouse Pet bit is unsourced, though presented in another article), and no reliable source for the information presented (IMDB is not acceptable as a reliable source). It's my belief that in its current form, the article should be deleted; however, I think there's room for community discussion, so I brought it here. Captainktainer * Talk 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nom On the basis of the extensive sourcing provided by AnonEMouse I hereby withdraw my nomination and provide my congratulations for a job well done. Captainktainer * Talk 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete. If we can't work on revising the article to include verifiable and reliable sources, then the present article should be deleted. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She may only weakly meet WP:PORN BIO but she still meets it. Also as I keep reminding folks WP:PORN BIO is not official policy so shouldn't be taken as gospel. There are lots of articles that sit around for months and even years without improvement yet are still kept. 23skidoo 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It shouldn't be taken as gospel, but given the sheer size of the porn industry, we need to have a standard for inclusion. Around 100 films (plus or minus 10 is a good figure) is a very decent standard. The biggest problem with this article is the lack of reliable sources - where are they? I've looked (still trying to bleach out my mind from that search) and have not found any. As for the claim that "we keep worse articles, so we should keep this one," that is an argumentum ad mediocritum, which is a very weak argument. Those other articles should probably be deleted as well, unless they're cleaned up to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Captainktainer * Talk 14:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment/Question. Where are the other articles in question, so that we may tag accordingly (whether for deletion, cleanup, or revision)? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are hundreds of them. I'm not talking about Pornstar articles, but articles on many different topics. Start with old stubs and work from there. In any event, my vote for Vicca is based on the fact that IMO she passes the notability bar set by WP:PORN BIO, guideline or not. 23skidoo 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you humor a fellow contributor and give a few examples, then? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThe source for the claim that she was the December 98 and 2001 Penthouse Pet would likely be the respective issues of Penthouse. Fireplace 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as being a porn star and a Penthouse Pet meets WP:PORN BIO. That she was one seems reliable, per IMDB and the 2001 video blurb. They may not be reliable sources per se, but the fact is easily verifiable per Fireplace. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In that case, what about the rest of the article? Verification of the fact that she's a Penthouse Pet would give her a mention in the List of Penthouse Pets - which she already has. Absolutely everything else in the article is unsourced, if you discount IMDB (which we should, although I will concede that it is acceptable for providing information on the movies she's been in). At present, there does not seem to be enough information on her from reliable sources to leave this as anything but a perpetual stub, unless the contributors to the article would like to provide sources. Captainktainer * Talk 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, ye of little faith. I added 3 articles and interviews (of varying quantity and quality), with a few minutes searching, and will add more. They will never be The New York Times in terms of reliability, mind, but they won't be nothing either. There will be sources. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that the sources should be footnotes. Otherwise, a very good job so far AnonEMouse. If I may also comment... it's pretty pathetic that it took an AFD to have the article sourced. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Here's the problem... One of the sources doesn't even borderline qualify as a source under WP:RS - lukeisback.com seems to be a blog. Excalibur Films doesn't seem to qualify either. I've seen that Spectator article before, and that may or may not qualify as a reliable source. I'm not of the opinion that it does, but I'll leave that to others. Captainktainer * Talk 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (2) LukeIsBack.com is the site of Luke Ford, "Porn's Gossip Columnist", "the most hated man in porn", etc.. While I entirely agree the organization and HTML of his site is lacking, the substance of the site is notable, mostly for the guy's dedication. He's a published author on this subject ("History of X", others), and has been doing "porn journalism" for a living for years. He can be (and has been, in print, see the article) compared to the Matt Drudge of this particular industry. He's a fairly reliable source, which can be shown, ironically, by the fact that he has been sued by porn stars several times over the years for revealing information they didn't want to be revealed. For this case, however, his article on the star is fairly skimpy, admittedly. As for the others, what can I say that I didn't say before with the "not New York Times" comment? Porn just isn't a subject that lends itself naturally to peer-reviewed university study. However, given there is no serious controversy about any of the issues dealing with the subject, I think they should suffice. Note that 90% of our articles that are not about porn don't have cast-iron quality references either, that doesn't mean they have no verifiable references and should be deleted. Write articles about porn, and your sources are going to be porn magazines, there is no way around that - but even porn magazine published articles are not blogs and forum posts. (1) I had to run after posting the 3 refs, I entirely agree they should be footnoted or otherwise cross-referenced with actual facts in the article, and even more should be added, but give me a bit of time to do that, please. (Or feel free to help, of course, I don't own the article.) I even think there are more sources that can be added; however this should be enough to make people vote Keep to give me that time. Note that I was not an original author of the Vicca article. (0)Aww, Joe, I'm blushing. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with the previous comment that she is verifiably a pornstar and all movies are listed on IMDB. Also I think that there is a wave of attention to the porn-related articles recently due to some kind of bias. I keep coming across some other articles that are very marginal and unnotable, but noone deletes them and here interest is only caused by porn-attribute. BlackAsker 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Then what is stopping you from nominating them for deletion? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment because I believe in the value of information and knowledge and would rather keep them if they have any relevance at all. Obviously people who nominated for deletion Vicca article are not this way. BlackAsker 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Be very, very, very careful about accusing people of being biased; I perceive in your comment a not-very-thinly-veiled accusation of bias on my part. I brought this article up for deletion for the reasons stated in the nom. You may feel free to examine my contributions if you believe that I am somehow biased against porn actresses (some of my votes in recent AfDs will surprise you). In the meantime, there are systemic problems with this article that do not look like they will be remedied anytime soon. Captainktainer * Talk 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation BlackAsker, please don't take this the wrong way, but I believe you've missed the entire point of the nomination. The main reason for the AfD was because the article did not have valid sources (and no one came up with them, despite repeated calls by myself and other editors on Talk:Vicca to get the piece sourced). The AfD is to delete the article in its pathetic, unsourced form (and that's putting it fairly mildly); it's not about the inclusion of Vicca herself, but the uncited article itself. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my comment above and IMDB content. From WP:V: Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made.. IMDB seems like a fine source for movie titles and cast lists. Further, each title is individually verifiable on, say, dvd websites. Fireplace 21:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it, obviously. There is a serious level of delusion at work here. IMDB is a much more reliable source than Wikipedia. Submissions are moderated, as anyone who uses these resources knows. Here it is catch as catch can and political, witness Joe Beaudoin's view of certain porn stars. He's made himself an editor and he has a personal hobbyhorse. Vicca was a major contract porn star with VCA and nearly Penthouse Pet of the Year, among other things. I finally grew tired of jousting with the personalities here, who never did answer my repeated questions about the technical issues of properly posting and discussing and so forth. Meanwhile, I look at many other entries and see nothing like the contentiousness generated by a couple insiders. Elihu1951
  • Comment We aren't allowed to quote Wikipedia as a reliable source, either. Your comment that a Wikipedian in good standing has "made himself an editor" is strange, considering that the point of Wikipedia is for everyone to be an editor. As for your questions, your talk page and the talk page of the article are filled with useful links and offers to help- offers to which you haven't responded. In the meantime, the article is filled with statements unverified by reliable sources, which have been asked for time and time aagin. Captainktainer * Talk 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whew, mostly done I think. If anything, I overdid the references. She meets two of the WP:PORN BIO criteria, with an AVN award, not to mention the relatively unusual combination of porn and academic potential. And, frankly, while the Google test is justly deprecated in most of these cases, believe someone who looked, she has a LOT of different sites and articles dedicated to her out there. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AnonEMouse's work in getting the article sourced has addressed my concerns on, well, sourcing. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please she meets the porn bios now and was in penthouse Yuckfoo 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, yes, lovely. It's now boring, missing key sourced information, and contains one or two fresh inaccuracies. For example, she is not a "pornographic actor." I hope the crank who made a federal case out of this is very happy. Oh, yes, IMDB is far more esteemed for accuracy and non-crank behavior, as it is moderated and relatively checked, than this monstrosity. And certainly far more people look for entertainment-related information to the Internet Movie DataBase than to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elihu1951 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 July 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.