Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie

Ginger Jolie

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie

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)
  • 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)
    • On the merits, the article is clearly within policy and she is clearly notable. See below. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • Her career may have been public, but that doesn't mean she was notable Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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. Trusilver 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Delete Not notable. Not mentioned in secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

• 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 notabity. 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 intrisic 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)
  • 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)
    • I consider it unresonable 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 substanial 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 reasses 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • I was involved in the development of WP:PORNBIO, and that is what was intended. Epbr123 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • Then add them to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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 indepth 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• Delete - Marginal notability, subject requests deletion. Mr.Z-man 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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 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)