Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Little

Alice Little

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Alice Little (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article previously deleted as G11. Current article sourced almost entirely to the subject's website, plus a blog; there is one mention in the Irish Sun (can't use a tabloid to establish notability), and a short CNN interview in an article about a campaign the was involved in. I find a couple of other brief mentions in news media online, but don't see anything that would demonstrate she passes WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also reads like an advertisement. Highway 89 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Art is full of OR based mostly on the subject's website. Agree it seems to be essentially an advert. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Charles William Luke II, I go by C.W. Luke II. Beg my pardon, but I do not know who I am addressing and I hope that this gets to the correct person. I was recently informed by Miss Little that edits that I made to her Wikipedia page has created issues between you and her. Alice had absolutely nothing to do with the actions that I took. After she first announced she had a Wikipedia I went to the site to check it out. I had never used Wikipedia before except to view information on subjects a handful of times over the years. My understanding was that they are a site that welcomed input from everyone. Additionally I did not know that Alice had paid a 3rd party to create and maintain the page for her.

I have been a follower of Alice on social media for the past year. Frankly, I admire her and when I read the page I felt it was a little dry. She shares so much about herself with her audience and I felt like the article needed more heart. Mainly to see how big of a heart that I have come to know that she has. Unfortunately I did not consult Miss Little prior to making my edits. She was not complicit in any way to my actions. It was a result of my good intentions and ignorance that has led to this discrepancy. Alice does not deserve to be punished or fined as a result of my misunderstanding. I had not intentions of undermining the service you provide or to create turmoil for Miss Little.

My hope is that this issue can be resolved with this message clearing the air and that you will give Alice a chance to continue to do business and maintain her Wikipedia page. She is a unique person and helps people in what most people would consider and unconventional way through her industry. She is making history and should be included in the Wikipedia encyclopedia for others to learn about her and continue to be educated by her. Educating people and helping them is her passion. It has caused me extreme sorrow to know that I may have jeopardized her ability to do this with you through Wikipedia. Please, please...PLEASE! Do not hold her at fault for my mistake. Thank you!

Sincerely, C.W. Luke II (916) 202-4823 cyber69surfer@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber69surfer (talk • contribs) 04:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Created for promotional purposes only. This is a comissioned work created by an undisclised paid editor [1]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment

For consideration: her profile in huffington post personal more than qualifies as person of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/legal-sex-worker-couples-communication_n_5ca78600e4b0a00f6d3f2a14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC) BBC news documentary of subject

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06ktbgc?ocid=socialflow_facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/sex-worker-freedom-nevada-holds-steady Cato Institute podcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilysmith/sex-workers-sesta-censorship-free-speech Buzzfeed article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/alice-little/

Independent news article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC) 

• Delete - not seeing the significant, in-depth, independent coverage to attest the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. The lack of indepedant coverage is the pressing issue; the subject is mentioned in several sources, but almost all of the information is WP:PRIMARY (much of which stems from Little's self-written bio in the Huffington Post) and thus does not confer notability on the subject. The article is also overly promotional, which contradicts WP:NOTADVOCACY. More independent sources—especially those which actually make a case for Little having a claim to encyclopedic notability—would be required.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern, My name is Charles W Luke II and there has been another misunderstanding of this situation. I was not informed by Miss Little that the page was marked for deletion do to the information in the Reference portion of the page. While it is true that I added information to other sections I DID NOT add any of the references or links provided in the Reference area. Again, I was not advised that the Reference area was what was in question. I will also add however that I have no doubt that it was added without the knowledge of Miss Little. It just wasn't me that added that information. I feel awful about this and hope that it gets remedied and she can continue to use her page. Sincerely, C.W. Luke II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber69surfer (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. The refs in the article are no sufficient to assure me that she is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Retract Previous Statements Dear Wikipedia Editors, I wish to retract my previous pleas to save this page. I was mislead by Alice Little to believe that as a result of my edits, this page was being considered for deletion. As an act of malicious retaliation she filed a false police report mentioned in this discussion. Per the request of Alice to remove myself from anything to do with her I hereby withdraw myself from any further participation in this incident. I am extremely grateful to the editors who not only took the time to assure me that this was not my fault, but also explain how the article came to be considered for deletion. This has been a bumpy learning experience and I respect the vigilance it must take for you to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia mission and values. Blessings to you all! Sincerely, C.W. Luke II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber69surfer (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep She meets WP:AUTHOR based on the cultural impact of the article she wrote. Page should not be deleted. Clean up promotion and add more citations. Rocktober2018 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:AUTHOR is a redirect to WP:CREATIVE, a notability category that has fairly solid notability requirements. The question is, can it credibly be said that any non-primary source cited in the article (or that could potential be added to the article) directly indicates the subject meets the points below WP:CREATIVE without inference.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Just about meets notability guidelines. I have added some more references. --John B123 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm - I took a look at those. You added her YouTube channel, and her 'Guest Writer' profile on HuffPost - neither of those help with notability. You also added a soft-soap puffy interview with Refinery 29 (primary, doesn't help establish notability). The best was probably the Irish Central piece - but to be honest, it's hard to see that as anything but a piece of churnalism - it's just rehashing details from her own website, and her HuffPost piece about herself. I can't see anything of this contributing to notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Or to look at it another way, the fact that Irish Central, which as far as I'm aware is accepted as a RS, churnalises(?) an article about her, then they must think her notable enough for inclusion.--John B123 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I very much doubt that IrishCentral would stand up to any scrutiny as an RS - writing an article based entirely on quotes from her own website, and from an article she wrote about herself, does not chime well with the 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' that WP:RS calls for. Maybe it does proper journalism as well, but literally just copying a few quotes from her own self-publicity does not strike me as the sort of reliable coverage we're looking for. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I created the page originally, and have tried to cut back some of the fluff. I might suggest reposting, and getting rid of some of the clutter on this page for a better discussion. One thing I've noticed is the general lack of sex worker coverage in mainstream GNG sources, which probably leads to a bigger discussion. Baguettelover (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree about the press coverage, the same applies to porn stars. There is of course also a moralistic attitude of some editors who target articles related to the sex industry. Whilst we argue about the quality of references, the unreferenced tag is used on 225,283 articles, some of which have had the tag for years, yet no nomination for deletion. 56K followers on Twitter shows notability to a lot of people, but unfortunately WP doesn't work that way. --John B123 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

John B123 I don't know whether you were including me in your 'some editors' above? FWIW, I don't believe I've ever nominated any article connected to the sex industry or to pornography to AfD before (feel free to check), and I certainly don't target such pages, I just volunteer at WP:NPP. Working my way through the back end of the queue, I came across this article and reviewed it according to standard NPP guidelines. I found that it did not contain sufficient independent sources to establish notability per GNG, and I couldn't find sufficient sourcing upon searching - so, I nominated to AfD. That's standard procedure with new articles. As for the 225,283 articles you refer to - other stuff exists. The fact that there are unreferenced articles out there is not a reason to deviate from our notability standards on this article. If you want to establish a new notability guideline that applies to people who have a lot of Twitter followers but aren't covered in independent reliable sources, you will need to establish consensus for that. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: My comments were certainly not directed at you, but was a general comment. I have been involved in other AfD discussions where there were comments along the lines of "Delete - Nobody wants to read about prostitution on Wikipedia". The same editors tend join in all the AfDs for a given subject. Most discussions have 10 or less editors so half a dozen regulars with a similar outlook skew the decision. Effectively, out of millions of members, or even thousands of active members, only the views of a handful count. "Consensus" isn't really that when it's only the "consensus" of a small fraction of 1% of editors. I find a lot of WP policies, guidelines and processes fundamentally flawed. Taking notability for example; a scientist in a very specialist micro-field of study may have published significant papers in that field, those works cited by many etc, so far exceeds the notability requirements. We end up with an article, no matter how good, that very few people will read because it is such a specialised area. On the other hand, we have articles on popular people that are of interest to a far greater audience that are deleted for notability. In pre-internet day, the only way of verifying facts was by printed matter. WP hasn't moved on that far from those days. Whilst it accepts online sources for verification, generally that is only the online version of printed matter (or previously printed sources that are now online only). Social media has changed the way "news" is reported, sometimes going to social media only. Although this can be problematic, in that I can post "fake news" if I wanted, taking a stance that all social media is unreliable is to shut off to a lot of information.

Again, not directed at anybody in this discussion, whilst obviously WP needs to be policed, the policing is very subjective at times and policies and guidelines are used to further personal views of what WP should or should not include, and a blind eye turned at other times to the same end. WP comes across at times as having too high a proportion of "school teachers" telling people what they are doing wrong, often in a less than friendly way, compared to the number who are trying contribute to the knowledge base. --John B123 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete

In addition to the reasons why this article was originally considered for deletion there is the fact that Alice Little paid for the article to be created. When Alice first announced on social media that the article had been created, I came to Wikipedia and for the first time decided to be a contributor and add content I felt was relevant about Alice. I had no understanding of the rules and guidelines, I just thought I was doing something cool for someone that I both admired and respected. We had built a rapport over the better part of the year that was demolished within a matter of about 90 minutes when I received a text from Miss Little that her Wikipedia article was in jeopardy because of the edits that I made to the page. Everything that I'm about to include here are verifiable in the text messages that I have saved to my phone. My email address was published above for anyone that would like to request copies of these texts for verification. Feeling guilty about myself being the cause I offered to contact Wikipedia to let them know that this was not what I intended and that it was all a big misunderstanding. I drafted the above letter which I shared with Miss Little prior to my posting it here. She approved the letter and I proceeded to seek out an email contact on the Wikipedia site so that I could send my confession and hopefully save the article. I even asked Alice for an email address of her point of contact, but she never replied. When I found this discussion I decided to post it here for the consideration of the editors voting whether or not do delete the article. As a result of that a post, that has since been deleted but a I have a screen shot of on my phone, that Alice filed a police report against me was shared on this forum and Alice messaged me again even more angry. She explained when she first contacted me that she paid over $5000 for for a company to set it up for her. In addition, the company that she paid was requesting additional funds to "fix" this for her. In a panic and again out of guilt I got on and posted my next comment in defense of saving the article. Finally two of the editors here were kind enough to contact me and not only assure me that my edits were not the cause of the consideration for deleting the article but that it was in fact the lack of qualified references and because the article sounded like a promotion for her business. Alice was also more enraged by the fact that in the confession, that she told me to send to Wikipedia, revealed the fact that she paid someone to create the article and now for that reason it is my fault that the page will be deleted. After about a day of trying to explain what I had learned about why her article was being deleted and Alice verbally assaulting me and telling me that I not only needed to stay away from her and the brothels, but the entire sex work world, I had decided I needed to give up the fight. But the more I thought about what happened, the more I decided that this was not right. I was told that Wikipedia has a policy to not "Generally" permit articles that were created as a result of paid services. In addition, to the violation of this policy and because Alice was misinformed by the creators of this article I was verbally abused by Miss Little and had a police report filed against me, and apparently banned from anything sex work related; not that Alice actually has that authority. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not simply a gathering of information but also a historical record. Alice Little is doing great things in the sex work industry and ultimately will be a huge part of the the Dennis Hof and Bunny Ranch legacy which both have articles on Wikipedia. Like Air Force Amy who also has a page, I believe that one day Alice should be allowed to have her own page based on the merits of her accomplishment in the industry. There was an argument earlier that there is not enough positive media coverage regarding the sex work world and I believe it was also in that spirit that Alice wanted to let the world know about the benefits of what she and her fellow sex workers have to offer the world. That's what she does...she teaches, and mostly cares about helping people which is what I attempted to say in the additions I made to the article. However, she needs to do that in an honest and ethical way that respects the guidelines and terms of Wikipedia. Thank you for hearing me out, I've developed a respect for the process under which the Wikipedia editors scrutinize, manage and uphold the standards of the site. When I first heard that anyone could add anything to the pages I wondered how Wikipedia maintained any level of integrity. Being part of this process I now see how you do so, and it is a difficult job and huge responsibility given how many articles and all the information you must have to pour through on a daily basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber69surfer (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete – Blatant advert. None of the sources supports notability per WP:GNG and no evidence the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Besides the links above (from those pretty much only the BBC link is relevant and a quality link, the rest is irrelevant, the Huffington Post even says Alice Little Guest Writer which makes it a self-published source) I took the pains of clicking on the "news" (search) link in the AfD template. Here are a couple (at least slightly interesting) results I found: The Irish Sun: Sexy 4ft 8 Irish lass reckons she’s the highest paid hooker in America – raking in $1MILLION a year, XBIZ: Veteran shutterbug Frank Thomas to Guest on 'CannaPornia' Tonight (XBIZ is "the adult industry's leading publisher of business news and information"), Mirror: America's 'highest paid sex worker' on $1m a year 'wants to help people connect', ProSieben/Taff: Alice Little: Die bestbezahlteste Prostituierte der USA (geoblocked, Taff is a "lifestyle" i.e. tabloid magazine of German commercial TV channel ProSieben), Nový Čas: Najdrahšie platená prostitútka: Jej cieľom je spájať sa zmyslupným spôsobom, neuveríte koľko si zarobí! (Novy Cas is the most popular Slovak tabloid newspaper), The Sun: America’s ‘highest-earning’ legal prostitute reveals what life is really like working in a brothel plus some other tabloid newspspers from additional countries (e.g. Poland and Belgium) and tons of local US newspapers (who only mentioned her name in a single sentence). No, this is NOT a notable person, rather someone who's working overtime to become famous. It's also a pity that the ghostwriters she has hired don't know how to google properly even. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)