Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Cummings (2nd nomination)

Rebecca Cummings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article was previously kept on some pretty sketchy argumentation, mainly that editors liked her apparent accomplishments. However, I can't find a single reliable, independent source to verify any of it. Google doesn't turn up a single biography on her, a single newspaper article, trade magazine article, anything. The one article cited is down, and it's not even about her, it's about the fact that the Wikipedia article exists (according to our old signpost article mentioning it). So all we have is her own site and a webcast radio show. The article has been written by either Rebecca Cummings or someone closely affiliated with her, but without sources, writing about yourself is just original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear from the article to pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. No attribution for any of the claims. --Charlene 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This never should have been kept in the first place, and there's even less reason now. —Chowbok ☠ 07:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above and lack of multiple independant sources about the subject. -- saberwyn 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for failure to satisfy WP:A and WP:BIO. Edison 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ad for an escort service. JJL 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only 53 unique ghits for '"Rebecca Cummings" pornography -wikipedia', none of them from anything approaching a reliable source (although there may well be some relevant hits that don't include "pornography" it seems likely that any reliable source on her will include the word or a close-enough derivative of it that google will pick it up) JulesH 10:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I the original editor of the article. Along with my comments for keep in the first AfD I would like to add the following.
  • Rebecca's article has gotten two stub ratings since it was originally given a stub rating by an administrator, as well as others, who helped me get it to the point it was a complete article. With the last two stub banners that were posted by a bot one of the banners says, "(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)". Not one comment was left and I was left searching the guidelines and policies to try and find out why. Then when I ask for an Administrators help the article gets put up for deletion. (To clarify I should say Night Gyr posted a message in the same Administrator talk page and is not the Administrator I was asking for advice from.)
  • I must say writing a Wikipedia article has been an experience. At this point I will never write or help edit another article for Wikipedia. It's not worth the wasted time after the article is written. Rebecca's article became a complete article with the help and support of several administrators and users that treated me with the respect someone writing their first Wikipedia article should receive. It was even improved by a suggestion during the first article for deletion debate. I've read a lot of the endless whirlpool of pages about Wikipedia and the processes, guidelines and policies to writing good articles and porn bios just to have other guidelines and policies buried inside Wikipedia that contradict the ones I read brought up. I've addressed issues as they came up while I was writing the article, after I wrote the article and also the first time the article was put up for deletion just to see the exact same issues come up in this AfD. That says there wasn't very much research before putting the article up for deletion the second time or posting a comment.
  • To address the comments above:
  • 1) I would ask that you expand on why it does not meet criteria so I can better understand. example - Does not meet WP:PORNBIO because ____ instead of just Does not meet WP:PORNBIO.
  • 2) Please show verification that the newspaper article doesn't contain personal information about Rebecca that was used in her Wikipedia article. (The main thing that comes to my mind is her home town which I left out because it was original research and was added by User:TrojanMan after the newspaper article was published.)
  • 3) Is a webcast radio show any less of a reliable source then a TV or newspaper story?
  • 2) The original research issue was dealt with by Administrator User:Alkivar when I first started the article and in the first AfD.
  • 3) Can someone direct me to the guideline or policy that says an article cannot be written by someone closely affiliated to the subject of the article? (The issue if I was Rebecca was also dealt with by Administrator User:Alkivar)
  • 4) Where does it say WP:BIO is the only standard for articles involving people in the adult industry instead of including WP:PORNBIO?
  • 5) Can someone direct me to the guideline or policy that says the number of Google hits determines notability? (Someone notable in Rhode Island will have fewer hits then someone notable in California. Does that make them any less notable and unacceptable for Wikipedia?)
  • 6) I would also like to see verification that Rebecca is an escort or works for an escort service or that Heart Throbs or HT Productions is an escort service which would make her article just an "ad for an escort service".
  • The only new argument for deletion since the first AfD is the that the link to the referenced newspaper article is down and becasue of that parts of Rebecca's article cannot be verified. I agree the link is down but from the discussion in the first AfD it is obvious the newspaper article was there. (<~~ Chowbok - I think I found something we both can agree on.) To help me understand Wikipedia better can someone point me in the direction of a policy or guideline about what happens when a link used as a reference in an article is down and that the article should be put up for deletion. The other option and I cannot find the format to use in Rebecca's article is the newspaper (and possibly the Des Moines public library) should have the article in the companies library or on microfiche. I'm still searching but if someone let's me know where to find the information on how to reference the newspaper article by using the contact information of the newspaper or the public library I will change it in Rebecca's article which will eliminate the verifiability issue.--HeartThrobs 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is pretty simple. When you write from firsthand experience, you end up writing facts that haven't been published anywhere before. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that, because everything written here needs to be verifiable to a reliable published source. The facts in the article need to be supported by reliable, published sources, and that's non-negotiable. It just wasn't enforced as strictly before. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There is nothing in the article that is original research. I was informed about original research when I first started the article. (see home town example above) That is also why I asked for help in being pointed in the right direction on how to cite directly to the newspaper's office since the article was online but the link is now broken. I'm still trying to find it in the Wikipedia guidelines but haven't found it yet. --HeartThrobs 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I also edited my prior comments to indent the numbered comments so it is easier to read. The only changes made were two astericks added before 1).

• The Des Moines Register cite has been updated to include the Library Manager's telephone number. Does this solve the problem? --HeartThrobs 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as before. Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination, as the article does not sufficiently argue about the subject's notability to meet WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:The article does meet WP:PORNBIO - this lady has won several state awards. What I have a problem with, hoever, is the fact that this cannot be verified... anywhere. Google tells me that the awards exist, and also lists several people who have won them, but I am hard-pushed to find Rebecca Cummings even exists, let alone has won any recognition. A google search for her name pulls up more on an English teacher than her. Without any kind of citation and a severe lack of web presence, I really don't think we should have this article. If the person who knows her can provide some evidence for this lady's notability, perhaps it can be salvaged though. DevAlt 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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.