Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crissy Moran (3rd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 November 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. This debate nicely shows the tension between our interpretation of notability and that presumed elsewhere. In closing an AFD we look at a rough consensus based on measuring arguments against policy rather then counting snouts. A lot of the keep arguments are very weak - a lot of assertion and relying on previous discussions. The most compelling keep arguments revolve around the Christianity today interview and appearance on a TV programme. Reliable sources have to be primary, not secondary so a promotional interview for a film isn't going to count and the TV appearance is a couple of minutes of interview in the context of a general discussion and not specifically about her. The paucity of reliable secondary sources concerning this person are argued by the delete side and they have challenged the sources provided and highlighted an absence of additional reliable material. There is no consensus that the sources provided pass the notability bar and a reasonable plain reading that they are both primary and therefore ineligible to count towards notability. Another keep argument was based around significant coverage being achieved through aggregating trivial coverage. This is not a policy based argument and, in a BLP, what counts are strong sources. The sources here are not enough to pass the inclusion bar so the rough consensus is to delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crissy Moran

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

Fails every notability criterion I can find, including the GNG and PORNBIO. Valrith (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG & PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominating on a yearly basis does not dismiss the rather reasonable arguments made at the earlier AFDs which resulted in the previous keeps.[1][2] She was found notable then and remains so... even after the guidelines being rewritten. Retired now from porn, the WP:GNG appears to be still be met by such as Florida Times-Union, Magazin, MAXIvip, El Argentino, Dread Central, Etcétera, Collider, The Insider and I note that even the caveats at WP:PORNBIO seems to be nodded at by her non-porn roles in films AFTER she quit that biz. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those citations offer only trivial information. The GNG requires significant coverage. Valrith (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @ User:Valrith: Excuse me, but your idea of what is trivial coverage seems to be at odds with the instructions at WP:GNG and the lengthy, significant and in-depth articles of the subject in Florida Times-Union (Eng) and Magazin (Slovak).... and the less in-depth, but more-than-trivial coverage of the subject in El Argentino (Span), Etcétera (Span) MAXIvip (Fra) and Collider (Eng). Perhaps it would be best to allow editors to check the proffered links for themselves so that they may make their own determinations of significance. The article was soundly kept the last time you nominated it for deletion.[3] Since you felt the article should have been deleted and it was not, did you take it to WP:DRV back then? Why wait 39 months to renominate? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would like to hear this response from User:Valrith as well. Additionally, I would like to know why he has failed to follow the deletion process established by Wikipedia, specifically in regards to notifying interested people, Wikiprojects, and major contributors. Valrith has presented that the GNG requires significant coverage. And indeed, this is true. However, User:Valrith appears to dismiss the very definition of significant as provided by Wikipedia. WP:SIGCOV Under this definition, the subject clearly meets the criteria for inclusion.Cindamuse (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The past two AfDs typify the stupidity that this process is sometimes allowed to travel, as this joke of an article has been allowed to remain afloat on the back of "keep it's notable/ilikeit" vapidity. No significant awards or noms in multiple years, no notability for a porn niche or genre, no HOF membership. WP:PORNBIO is failed, utterly. Turning to WP:GNG, we have trivial foreign-sourced blurbs and one local piece from the Florida Times-Union in 2007 about her quitting porn for Jesus. Though that bit of news seems dated now that her official website was running by 2008. I certainly wouldn't throw her out of bed for eating crackers, as the saying goes. But not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer please note This argument is based on faulty logic and inaccurate information. While the Web site located at www.crissymoran.net claims to be the official Web site for the subject of this article, this is not true. The Web site in question is administered by a former boyfriend of the subject. It presents a compilation of photos and videos of the subject, who has no control over the content. Additionally, she receives no financial remuneration.Cindamuse (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer please note and judge the strength of an argument that denigrates previous consensus, ignores significant non-English sources in dismissal of the caveats of WP:GNG and WP:RS, and declares as "one local piece", an in-depth and widely distributed article from The Florida Times-Union... the largest newspaper of the Morris Communications chain, and a newspaper determined in 2007 to be among the "Top 100 newspapers in the US".[4] This comment also dismisses as "trivial foreign-sourced blurbs", significant and in-depth articles such as Centrum Holdings' owned Magazin, a media source which in Slovakia alone has 1.5 million visitors monthly.[5] Opining about sources without actually knowing about them... and then calling this a "joke of an article"... whether intended or not, feels strongly of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and all are rather insufficient in establishing notability; one local source and a smattering of foreign language rags. This weak, low-rung-of-the-ladder approach to BLP sourcing is precisely why I opposed your RfA. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Florida Times-Union and the Slovakian Magazin are not "weak" nor "low rung". The total breadth of coverage of this person in articles in the US, Spain, Argentina, France, Slovakia, et.al., all act to show that her notability and coverage is decidely more than of local interest. There are many more significant articles available, and she is covered in multiple books... and even if not great tomes, guideline specifically encourages supportive more-than-trivial sources without demanding that they all be lengthy. And toward your WP:ATTP and your feeling it neccessary to bring up a failed RFA,[6] I have since the RFA made a point of personally and repeatedly reviewing WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:BIO and WP:CIV at great length and in detail, and have since that RFA never included in an AFD discussion as poor a source as Babepedia or Foxy reviews for consideration as I did in error back in February. I am puzzled and saddened that you feel it neccessary to use that earlier and admited error from months ago to denigrate and now somehow negatively compare The Florida Times-Unuion or Magazin to those earlier and admitted poor sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Tarc. Clearly fails WP:PORNBIO, randomly trivial coverage in borderline-reliable sources doesn't satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer please note and judge the strength of an argument, which in total dismissal of the caveats of WP:GNG and WP:RS, implies that The Florida Times-Union is somehow a "borderline-reliable source". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per it's clearly of interest to some otherwise reasonable people, it's survived several previous nitpickingfests, and if it gets deleted now, somebody who finds the subject noteworthy will create a new one pretty soon, you can bet on it. Credmond (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a godawful rationale. Some people like it, Oh no, not again, and if your 3rd criteria happens, it is an easy G4 via speedy deletion. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Besides the non-trivial sources that Schmidt had mentioned to satisfy the GNG, here's another [7]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interview by a porn mag that does little but rattle off the "where's the kinkiest place you've had sex?" kind of errata? No, not even close. Tarc (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Tarc: Of all the many porn-related magazines extant, Adult Video News seems to be among the very few porn-related magazines seen as acceptable by WikiProject Pornography for sourcing porn entertainers. Or is it your expectation and demand that porn actresses can be covered only in non-porn mainstream sources? It's certainly no surprise that a 2003 industry interview of a (then) newcomer to the adult film industry, would ask the dumb questions that it does, in order to (then) help promote her as a porn actress. But even as an industry source, Adult Video News does not offer "errata" on each and every one of the thouands upon thousands involved in the porn trade each year, so their decision to interview her is indicative of her stature at that time.

Policies WP:V and WP:BLP mandate that anything within a BLP must be verifiable in reliable sources. That said, the only thing that AVN article might do here is perhaps confirm the enclyclopedic information of her growing up in Jacksonville, Florida, having one male sibling, and having non-industry jobs until 1999. "The kinkiest place" she's had sex has no place within an encyclopedic article unless it is itself in some way notable. IE: If it were documented that she had sex on the wing of Air Force One, THAT might qualify. I am becoming increasingly concerned at what appears to be your fundamental misunderstanding of BLP policy and your disregard for that policy's mandated requirements for reliable sources for even the smaller encyclopedic details that might be written in a BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage found in reliable sources, thus meeting WP:GNG guidelines for inclusion. I see some of those sources were recently added since this nom. Those sources include El Argentino, which is a widely distributed mon-fri tabloid in Buenos Aires. And Magazin.sk is part of a fairly high profile Slovakian media group. Could some disagree about the extent of coverage here? Sure, but I see its been kept twice with less sourcing than it has now. As an aside, its disappointing when a 3rd AfD nomination makes no reference to two prior AfDs which resulted in a "keep" outcome, especially when the current nominator is the same as for the 2nd AfD. Thus, while the nominator believes that the subject "fails every notability criterion I can find", he was proven to be in a distinct minority when that opinion was previously submitted to the editors of the project. I think its best in such situations for the nominator to explain why he believes the prior AfD was not the proper result. Though its not required, it can be more persuasive.--Milowent (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Among other improvements to the article that changed a conflicted stub[8] into a modest start class since nomination,[9] I also recently found and included an interview from Christianity Today that is somewhat more relevant to the new Crissy Moran.[10] Of course, since that article is in a widely distributed Christian magazine, I almost expect that some of the delete opinions might somehow declare it as false or local or irrelevent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, Christianity Today has a circulation base of at least 140,000.[11].--Milowent (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news gets results. The first one has her bio at The Insider. So that news source considers her notable. Jacksonville gives her coverage for quitting the porn industry and turning to Christ. And El Argentino covers her as well. Dream Focus 01:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG for me. Dismas|^(talk) 07:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Tarc, the requirement is that the total coverage be significant, not that every bit of coverage reach that level. The guideline specifically mentions that you can get there, even with all trivial coverage. It's just more trouble than it's worth most of the time. Even if you were correct about the sources, the article still hits significant coverage.Horrorshowj (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, so a collection of "trivial coverage" equals "significant coverage" ? I love it when the hyper-inclusionists simply make things up as they go along. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please tone down the TarcSnark(tm)? You've been foaming at the mouth lately about inclusionists.--Milowent (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great personal insult. Unfortunately, I'm at 16 deletes and 9 keeps for my last 25 AfD. I'm pretty sure I've voted delete with you on several occasions, so calling me a "hyper-inclusionist" makes you look a bit like either a fanatic or an imbecile.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources that were given here are not the only point, the other is that there was/is a lot of feedback in all 3 AfD discussions which proves an existing interest in keeping that article. It's also kinda ridiculous the nominate an article every year again in hope that the guidelines are meanwhile strict enough to get it deleted finally. These are still GUIDELINES anyway not policy to be strictly enforced at all costs. Testales (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Tarc and EuroPride. Fails all wiki policies WP:PORNBIO in primis. Can't keep these girls in Wikipedia, because they fail criteria. Good nomination for deletion. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer please note and judge the strength of an argument that erroneously assumes that PORNBIO supercedes the GNG for an individual who left that industry in 2006. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer please note that this lady already fails GNG. The articles from RS (yet primary) that user:Schmidt brings are mostly about her conversion to Christianity, not because of her notability as an actress. Doing a couple of indie movies doesn't make you notable. Converting from pornstar profession to Christianity doesn't make you notable either. In fundis I highly doubt that her notability won't be temporary. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 06:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closer please note this person already passes WP:GNG, and guideline does not care if continued and significant coverage of an individual is about a porn career... or about a change in one's life... or about her films... or a combination of things. It is that continued coverage in multiple reliable sources over a multi-year period from at least 2003 through 2010 that specifically meets the instructions at WP:GNG... no matter the topic of that coverage. And it is through continued and significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that an individual can show Wikipedia guided notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Supposedly notable for being a porn actress and a regular actress, yet fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT. Remaining coverage about "finding God" or whatever is trivial and does not establish notability per WP:GNG. SnottyWong talk 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, her notability has been established per her meeting WP:GNG. There is no assertion by me or anyone else here that her notability is dependent on WP:PORNBIO or on WP:ENT, only assertions that it fails those. So what? She also fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:DIPLOMAT. It is the GNG that must be and is met, not those others... and the various guidelines are not meant to be mutually exclusionary. That some of the WP:RS covers this person in context to her Christianity, her leaving porn, and her begining a new life, does in no way detract from that coverage being in multiple reliable sources and covering many years. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm missing what relevance WP:AUTHOR and WP:DIPLOMAT have in relation to a washed-up born-again porn star. SnottyWong comment 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "relevance" is that failing a no-longer-appropriate guidelines does equate to automatic non-notability. One might meet ANYBIO through awards, yet fail GNG.... or might fail ENT or MUSICBIO or PROF or PORNBIO or AUTHOR and still meet notability through GNG. Guidelines are not set to be mutually exclusionary... but rather, mutually supportive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. While I would agree that the article is poorly written, I would submit that the subject of this article CLEARLY meets the criteria presented under WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as shown through the various references submitted. Of primary interest is the article and interview in Christianity Today and her recent appearance on an ABC News Nightline program. (Interesting that national news considers her notable, but a handful of people participating in this conversation do not.) While she may not appear as significant within the scope of WP:PORNBIO, she has become a significant force in the fight against human trafficking and the exploitation of women and children. Too many individuals here are focusing on information regarding her pornography career in an effort to discredit inclusion based on WP:PORN criteria. Eliminating this criteria, the subject continues to establish notability under WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines. There is sufficient information to show that the subject meets the criteria under the Notability guidelines established by Wikipedia. I would suggest, however, that the original poster may be focusing attention on the wrong sources regarding the subject, her life, and career.Cindamuse (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even Google Scholar provides a reasonable source for this topic and so its notability seems well-established per WP:N. As for WP:PORNBIO, isn't that a joke? These absurdly narrow, sectarian guidelines seem contrary to our policy of WP:NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (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.