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. By a pure head count, this article would be kept, but that's not how consensus (necessarily) works on Wikipedia. By my read of the debate, the substantive arguments to delete the article, particularly those advanced by Lagrange613, are based in stronger policy-grounded territory than the arguments advanced by the opposite side. I recognize that this decision may be controversial, so I am open to having it reviewed at deletion review. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox[edit]

Belle Knox (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)

Several reasons:

So far this person's life seems to meet the first 2 of these 3 criterion, as there is very little about Knox's life that will ever be public at this time, so any article Wikipedia will have about her will be slanted towards her porn career and violate NPOV and BLP.

Additionally, Knox fails WP:PORNBIO at this time. There is no evidence of Knox being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" or "[making] unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre."

Finally, do no harm; Knox was reluctant even to publicize her stage name at first due to repetitive doxxing by Internet misogynist trolls. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... it looks like the coverage here is global and quite heavy. CNN's Piers Morgan interviewed her and there's lengthy pieces in papers from other countries such as the Times of India. I think she might be one of the exceptions to the one event rule. I'm bringing in people from the feminism WP to help edit, though. I haven't really made a decision on notability either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to state that nobody add her real name to the article. I've seen one or two places drop what may be her name, but until she confirms her real identity I'd like to politely ask that nobody add it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tokyogirl79 I actually wrote that the day that she revealed herself, so that is why I decided to do it at that time, since we wouldn't be using a pseudonym there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoot, I misread the original article when it came out, so thanks for correcting that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having observed the response on this I'm now certain that this should be a keep. The Guardian writes "Public humiliation is humanity’s age-old punishment for sluts, in America as anywhere else" [3]. Both she and several of the sources covering this event (including everything from blogs and gossip sites to realible sources) have covered the fact that she became a porn actress in order to finance her studies, but also how she was treated once outed and how this changed and went public after responding to the initial bullying and threats. There has also been follow-ups to this story, where several sources try to put it into a bigger picture on how woman are treated for having similar desires as men, or when they try to make independent and unusual choices. Looking at BLP1E I observe the following:
  • Reliable sources cover her for being outed as a porn star and the bullying associated with it. They also puts the bullying into a bigger context of threats and violence against women, and for me this goes beyond the "one event" rule.
  • She initially wanted to be low-profile, but when the story exploded (after giving initial anynonomous interviews) she went public, got worldwide attention and not only attacked the bullies but also on the way society discriminates against "woman who transgresses the norm"[4]. By doing this, and also appearing on television she made a choice to stand up and become a public figure (at least to a certain extent).
BLP1E says that it should only apply for low-profiled people, but in my opinion that doesn't matter in this case as the specific event has grown into a much bigger thing. Bjelleklang - talk 20:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in the better newspapers is far from prurient - it is reflective, intelligent and discursive, given the seriousness of the issues of society's provision of education, and more. The 1E thing is starting to look wrong, too, given that she shows no sign of becoming 'low-profile' - she has indeed outed herself, and is actively publishing her own point of view on the issues. That the tabloids also did what tabloids do is a side issue - they always do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't, but the thing is that she has received controversy and coverage in the news. What we're trying to look at is the depth and coverage Knox has received. That she got it by doing online pornography shouldn't automatically discredit any news she has received. We leave the history intact, leave the protection up, and just redirect to an appropriate target. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 174.108.25.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit, I'm leaning towards changing to a weak keep. She keeps getting coverage from all over the world and she's been in several major news outlets giving interviews. This is very close to being one of the exceptions to 1E. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can also argue that she doesn't meet BLP1E because she appears to have become a high-profile individual (after her blogposts at XOJane), and also that this event has become about something bigger than her outing. We don't know what will happen in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years, so we can only look at the coverage now and base notability on that. For me she is notable, more so since there has been more or less worldwide coverage from multiple reliable sources. If she however turns out to vanish after this has settled we can always renominate the article for deletion at a later stage. Bjelleklang - talk 07:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a compelling argument in my opinion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think that might be going in the wrong direction. It would create an WP:Undue situation where we ignore relevant content about her, and her ideas, that are not then specifically about just the controversy. I think it's better to treat her story in its entirety, and allow events to be reported in proportion to what reliable sources weigh them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
She never said that about the topic of men watching porn. The majority of articles out there about her are not about the controversy, but about her as a person, and to say otherwise is to ignore the fact that a lot of people really don't care that she has done porn but a lot of those people care that she is being harassed for doing such a thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Never said what? In any case I still disagree, i think the subject should be about her entire story, not just on the controversy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Oh shoot, I meant to indent that so that it wouldn't look like a reply to you. In terms of what she never said, I misread what he said about her comparison. In terms of moving the article, I think it would be better addressed in Feminist views of pornography, as she is clearly notable at this point as a person, moreso than as a controversy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure Secret, the policy is clear, and you are spectacularly failing to explain how this one meets the three conditions of BLP1E. And referring to CNN and Time as tabloid junk is just laughable. I assume your comment is a book case of a POV, non-policy based vote that the closer will easily discard in his close. Cavarrone 20:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No this isn't a POV non-policy based vote. You are stating this because you want the article to be kept. This isn't Wikipedia material, it's a case of recenstism from slow news stories because she is a brave young woman who reacted to a serious circumstance in her personal life with dignity and strength. If she becomes a more vocal activist, she might become notable for an article in the future but right now it's too soon to tell, and I'm standing by my rationale. Secret account 20:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your "standing by your rationale" Secret, but laughable assumptions such as yours about CNN and Time being tabloid junk are, with respect, a bookcase of POV. Also, relying on BLP1E but failing to explain how this one meets the three criteria of BLP1E carries no weight to your argument. So, do you want to make a strong policy-based argument for deleting the article under BLP1E? Please explain us how this subject meets each of three required conditions to be a BLP1E. Cavarrone 21:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is the height of recentism to ascribe "enduring historical significance" to any aspect of this. This ain't the Battle of Waterloo. Lagrange613 23:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not ascribing historical significance, the sources are and we can only report on where they go. Please direct the Waterloo arguments for the national media that are reporting on this, we are only following their led. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Good luck finding a reliable source ascribing enduring historical significance to this month-old event; absent such a source the argument for keeping falls flat. Even if you could, per WP:SENSATION we need to exercise judgment when evaluating bursts of media activity. Lagrange613 23:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have already made that connection, they have made it a chapter in history, on a national level, and are still doing so. Obviously any lasting effects should be documented as well, but i think we are well past GNG, and BLP1E no longer applies. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Well, one prediction I'm fairly comfortable in making is that in several years, assuming Knox stays at Duke and graduates, there will be press again about this talking about how a "porn star just graduated from Duke". For all we know, she could become the next Gloria Steinem (or Gloria Leonard for that matter), but that's pure speculation at this point. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am not saying that notability is temporary, so linking that section of the policy is a non sequitur. The news still reporting on her over a week after this began is (for me at least) proof of nothing. VQuakr (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a source for that too, a Leeds University study, at least in regard to stripping and erotic dancing. [9] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- there is very little to be gained by you trying to respond to those who do not hold your opinion. In fact,I rarely see anyone change there !vote upon being accosted in that manner. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article and the bit you add about "shame" is not part of the policy, and the unproduced "threats" which you provided are milder than threats I have received personally. People who seek fame from a single event are fully as covered as anyone else on Wikipedia. Your "unring a bell" analogy is absolutely inapt as an argument here -- just as those who seek Wikifame because of one event also do not get BLPs about themselves. In fact, most of the self-promotional BLPs are unceremoniously deleted. Cheers and kindly do not respond to my !votes on any page. Collect (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have no concern, I have confidence that reasonable editors will see your comments as they are, and avoid judging my response, as "accosting." The harassment, threats of rape, physical attacks, on her campus, and death threats, were directed at Knox. Dismiss them if you choose, they sure do seem real to her, and the national media that have discussed them with her, and in relation to her being outed. If you think the article should be deleted because its promotional tone, I think you're reading a different article than the rest of us. And that would remain a clean up issue. And your !votes are not immune from anyone responding to them, if you don't want them responded to then don't register them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
You mean like this one... Is it any wonder student turn to porn to pay college costs which references this interview. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2014 (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.
Category