Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norma Stitz (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. After the rewrite and addition of sources, arguments based on the lack of sources became moot, further evidenced by the fact that for 10 days after the rewrite there were no further !votes for deletion. SoWhy 06:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Stitz

edit
AfDs for this article:
Norma Stitz (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)

Just because a person receives a tiny bit of media coverage does not make them "notable", nor does having big breasts make someone a suitable subject for a purportedly serious encyclopedia. Do we have articles for the world's biggest schlong? The world's ugliest face? The Guinness Book of World Records only published information about Norma once in 2000. We do not know if she is still the holder of this "record". And there are no other first-rate secondary sources that I can find. This article is a proper embarrassment. IAR and nuke. Hillbillyholiday (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Maybe Merge to breasts; the subject appears to be Guinness World Records holder for the largest boobs in the world. North America1000 12:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep coverage on TLC, ABC, Fox news and more. If she is still a record holder doesn't matter. That coverage it's for something sex related doesn't mean we don't cover it. Meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Full disclosure, our project page was asked to review this file, before it was relisted. I have evaluated the sources on the article and find they do not meet WP requirements for reliable sources, i.e. Pophangover does not appear to be a curated site, the ITV link is dead, and neither the the Daily Mail nor Linked in are reliable sources. That leaves the file with two sources, the Mirror and Huffington Post which are insufficient to provide adequate coverage to create a comprehensive encyclopedic entry. A search for additional RS yields only one additional source [1]. She fails GNG. Evaluating from the PORN BIO guidelines, she does not meet any of the criteria: no industry award; not a trendsetter nor and industry Hall of Fame inductee (the Guinness Book of Records is a broad-spectrum collector and not specific to the porn industry, nor is it an award); two times does not "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" make. As a BLP, evaluating the remaining sources leaves us with two Tabloid pieces and an article from the Huffington Post, which are insufficient to verify notability and not reliable sources. In fact, the BLP prohibits an article being based solely on tabloid pieces. Thus, there are no sources which meet our guidelines on any level except one weak article from HuffPost, which is insufficient sourcing and verification for an article. SusunW (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an archived itv link for those who want to see it. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: If there are no reliable sources, and at this point there are not, there is nothing to be merged. BLP requirements apply, whether she is the sole subject of an article or merely mentioned in another article. I have no interest in this topic and am not going to comment further, as my !vote was merely a commentary on policy as it relates to article. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on mobile and editing on a phone sucks. I'm seeing sources from Fox news, ABC and more. I'll supply links when I return on Tuesday if none else has. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If one digs through the search results, she has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Despite the nomination statement, she is still in the Guinness Book (being a record-holder is not an annual event). I'm working on a phone, which is less than optimal, but I found news stories in The New York Post and News One (about her appearance on Strange Sex) and appearances on Double Divas and This Morning. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone improves the sourcing to the kind of standard we expect for BLPs. Right now the article has six citations: three to British tabloids which are unreliable and frankly useless, one to what looks like a celebrity gossip site, one to the subject's LinkedIn profile, one to an archive of a breakfast TV show and one to the Huffington Post (which looks like a TV listing). That isn't good enough. If better sources exist then they need to be added if we are to keep this article around. Hut 8.5 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NOT TABLOID and NOT BELIEVEITORNOT. Notability does not arise from this sort of sourcing DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Hut 8.5. The sources provided are either not independent, or are trashy tabloid stuff that can't be considered reliable or appropriate for a BLP article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Deletion provided by the reasons of Hut 8.5 and DGG: sourcing is far below what we would expect for a BLP, and I can't actually believe I am seeing a suggestions to redirect/merge this article to breasts! That would be the biggest BLP violation of a redirect I have ever seen on this project: are we seriously going to say that it is okay to have the name of a living person to probably the most fetishized part of the human anatomy, even if she has promoted herself for having a large pair of them? No. That is the exact opposite of what the BLP policy was meant to do: prevent harm to people, and yes, having your name point to breasts on the 6th most popular website in the world is harming someone. We value actual human persons here more than the encyclopedia, and redirects for no reason other than to say we didn't delete an article are foolish in these cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a note, while I appreciate S Marshall's alternative redirect below and consider it slightly better, the main force of my argument stands: redirecting a living person to a medical condition is still harmful to them and doesn't do the readers much service. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • She chooses to be called Norma Stitz, Tony.—S Marshall T/C 20:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is a fair point. I still don't think it overcomes the fact that the redirect would be of little use to the reader and redirects of this nature are still questionable in my mind from a BLP perspective. I also don't see a particular need to preserve the history in this case. There isn't a strong argument to redirect, but there are arguments to prefer deletion IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no objection to deleting the history. To me, the redirect seems like a better idea than a redlink that invites a Wikipedia newbie to create an article in that space. We have more than enough unpleasant newbie-traps as it is.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Redirecting the name - even the stage name - of a living person to an article where she is not so much as mentioned is almost always a bad idea; RFD deletes such redirects all the time. In this particular case, it's a singularly terrible idea, only barely different from the straws that broke Neelix's back. WP:BLPDEL allows us to preemptively salt the title (and its redirect from the subject's real name) if you're truly worried about a newbie recreation. —Cryptic 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, I'd have to add a "sufferers" section to the condition. Doesn't seem insurmountable. Because of the Guinness Book of Records thing, her name's a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gigantomastia, is my advice; it's her medical condition that's the encyclopaedic topic here. I wouldn't want to see a biographical article based on the crappy tabloid sources we have.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for lack of sufficient sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. No need for a merge / redirect, as a mention of a specific person would be undue in either breasts (general article) or gigantomastia (a medical condition). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, now that I'm on a real computer, I can't find the sources I could find before. But here are a few that seem reliable.
    • [[2]] looks like a reliable medical site that is a bit more coverage than "in passing".
    • [NewsOne] looks like a reliable source.
    • [[3]] Huffingtonpost isn't great, but this article looks fine.
    • [[4]] is in French and I don't know about the reliability of the site, but it does talk quite a bit about the subject. Enough for a short article by itself.
    • [[5]] documents the fact that she has been added to a wax museum along with a number of clearly notable people.

Plus, we have plenty of documentation that she was featured in an episode of "Strange Sex" and had coverage for that. Not the strongest case for a BLP I've ever seen, but well above the bar of WP:N IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done some investigation of the background of the sources being used. Medical Daily is published by IBT Media, which also publishes International Business Times and Newsweek. WZLX is owned by CBS Radio. VietNamNet Bridge is owned by Viettel. Adult Video News is the trade paper of the adult film industry, and is only cited to show that it did in fact review one of the subject's videos. News One is not the Urdu-language News One that the Wikipedia page of that title describes, but is a subsidiary of Interactive One, a large digital media company geared to the African-American and Hispanic communities. All in all, not The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Times of London, but far better than a collection of red tops.
This isn't my favorite topic to work on, but I would hate to see any article on any topic as well-known as this deleted. I suppose it's possible that a topic might be very well-known among the public (even over a long period of time, as this is) while failing to satisfy Wikipedia's specific criteria for notability, but I suspect that in practice that's a WP:SNOWBALL scenario. WP:BEFORE applies in spades to sourcing very well-known topics.
—Syrenka V (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was already !voting to keep, though I'll admit without much enthusiasm. This looks much better. A bit stubby, but very well sourced. Move me to "strong keep" I suppose. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article as well as the sources seem to have been improved considerably since the nomination was started. At this point, the article seems to me to be a clear keep. As a consequence, I believe many of the delete rationales prior to the 29th of August may be disregarded. 79.67.85.74 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources that exist are enough to establish notability. Arguments for deletion based on what the sourcing in the article was like, or that this isn't the sort of topic that they think should be in an encyclopedia are weak from a policy point of view. --Michig (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Huffpost piece in the second column should be mined for improvement of this bio, which does not even mention gigantomastia. The fact that a figure of the subject appears in a wax museum in Vietnam next to a long list of well-known celebrities should be a tip that this is not a run of the mill adult film star (with a claimed 250 softcore movies). Bottom line is that this is a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I wanted to !vote delete per nom's rationale. However, sourcing is available which shows that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:36, 10 September 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norma_Stitz_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138168709"
  NODES
admin 1
chat 2
Idea 4
idea 4
INTERN 1
Note 8
Project 4
Verify 1