Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Quinn (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Quinn

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO; group scene awards don't count, and all others are nominations. refimprov tag has sat for seven years. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AVN Award winner. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG; I have rewritten the article and added several reliable sources. There is mainstream media coverage of the subject over a twenty-year span. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - She fails WP:PORNBIO which states "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration" - All awards that I can see are scene related so meh Delete. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No serious argument that the subject passes PORNBIO. Aside from minimal coverage when her underage status was found out, the other "coverage" is really no more than passing mentions in listings like "other underage pornstars included ..." This puts us in BLP1E territory, and I don't see either that event or the very limited subsequent coverage as sufficient to sustain a BLP here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - On my god ... Me and You agree on something for once - It may snow tomorrow now . –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HW, is this what you're referring to? Because that isn't a "passing mention" for Quinn. That argument would be true in reference to Kristara Barrington, Ali Moore and Nikki Charm in that same article, but not Quinn. And just because the article isn't entirely about her doesn't mean it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, which states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". And WP:BLP1E states "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E)". Media coverage of Quinn is persistent, it began in 1991 and as recently as 2011-2013, articles about her have continued to be published. BLP1E also states that it "should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals" and Quinn is not a low-profile individual because she returned to the porn industry afterward. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog source in a BLP; it does nothing but regurgitate cursory details from long ago without updating anything; and the only information it provides beond the 1E is that subject has breast implants. That's not significant coverage or persistent coverage. And arguing that BLP1E doesn't apply to someone who left then returned to being a sex worker has neither logic nor policy support behind it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. According to WP:NEWSBLOG, it's an acceptable source. 2. Again, WP:GNG does not require her to be the main topic of the source material. 3. She actually is the main topic of all the other mainstream sources in the article. 4. How can you think that coverage of her 22 years later is not persistent? 5. According to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile". Aside from her interviews on Hard Copy and The Howard Stern Show [1], no one who wants to be low-profile performs in pornographic films. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes the general notability guidelines and not as BLP1E. She was featured in the book about the murder of Christopher Walsh, Nobody Walks, as the girlfriend of one of the murderer. A chapter is also devoted to her devirginising some fan as part of a publicity stunt in in Embedded. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the kind of media coverage that justifies inclusion. Several sweeps of news sources did not yield much that suggests AQ meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources on Alexandra Quinn can be found on newslibrary.com. They're easier to find if you search for "Diane Purdie Stewart" (her real name) or "Alexandria Quinn" (with an "i") instead of "Alexandra Quinn". There's also a The Commercial Appeal article on Quinn which you can find by searching for "Diane Colazzo". That article was published on October 30, 1993 and is unrelated to her underage scandal. Morbidthoughts also provided several sources on Quinn above, which are also unrelated to the underage scandal. Quinn passes GNG and is not a BLP1E. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to provide links, also hone the current article to remove the dubious sources, if these things are done I'll reevaluate my choice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:GNG through industry coverage for her multiple award nominations. Mainstream media is nice, but is not a policy nor a guideline. It is reasonable that someone in the adult industry would be covered by adult industry media. PORNBIO is a supplement to the GNG and does not supersede it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
Comment. An obvious attempt to evade the "overwhelming" RFC consensus that those porn award nominations do not count toward establishing notability. In addition, notability policy/guidelines require reliable, independent sourcing to establish notability, and press releases and self-sourced databases are not accepted as establishing notability in any other context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2015 (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.