Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midori (actress)

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midori (actress)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Sources offered fail gng and lack necessary depth and independence to support a blp Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NSINGER and even WP:GNG. No chart history, as far as one can see, and not much of an impression on music. Her sister is justly famous (and Wikinotable) but that doesn't amount to much. One could invoke WP:PORNBIO and keep it, but one better not. -The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I revamped her article. I encourage folks to take a look at it as of now. Missvain (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per proper BEFORE done by Missvain. You know you can vote right? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I know, I just wanted to gauge others thoughts before. I have decided to focus on women pornographic-focused bios for a while, and I'm still getting my feelers out there regarding the subject. I'm so excited that the guidelines for WP:PORN have been deprecated. I didn't even know that was happening last Spring and I just think it's way better, and way more supportive, of women in the industry - and those who want, perhaps, disappear into obscurity. Missvain (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not ignore here the fact that, whether or not the biography of a living person stays up is typically not decided by that person, especially if that person is widely known. (The related policies can be found in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:BIODELETE, and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.) And there is always the resort of subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wikipedia page to apply to have the material removed. (See WP:BIOSELF.) Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)-The Gnome (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I rewrote Midori's article. Sourcing is very interesting sometimes for pornographic actors, not always your typical mainstream coverage. While a few sources are interviews, I do think her historical significant is valuable in porn, women's history, and black history. Also she's consistent with her stories in multiple interviews, when I use oral history (and I do regularly, including when I was Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian) that is something I look for - consistency. Oral history is invaluable in subjects where mainstream media might not be covering the subject. Also see WP:BASIC regarding the plethora of reliable secondary sources that we combined to create a substantial piece about her. Anyway, I hope Midori is kept! Missvain (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere congratulations on your work on oral history, as you testify above, Missvain. Two points, if I may: One, women's history and African-American (black) history, as you know, contain the stories/biographies of myriads of persons, as well as the transcripts of the many oral testimonies that have been saved. Wikipedia has a special focus on education, as we know, but oral history in thw context of Wikipedia cannot but be treated as every other source, i.e. on the basis of verifiability. For this purpose, interviews are useful in Wikipedia to support an event or something else of note - but as far the person's own Wikinotability is concerned, which typically translates to inclusion of an article about them, an interview is of little use. (See note c in WP:PRIMARY.) We cannot be the ones who establish our own notibility in Wikipedia!

And, two, the fact that Midori is "consistent," as you put it, across her interviews amounts to very little, as far as, again, Wikinotability is concerned. -The Gnome (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Initially abstained because I was on the fence given the article in the state it was nominated in, but Missvain's rewrite gets it over the line. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources forensics:

-Repeated citations of an offline advertorial in the Black Video Illustrated porn video guide.

-Interviews such as this or this on blogs and "adult" websites (where every porn performer who can be reached is interviewed),

-Interviews of her sister, Jody Watley, such as this on Ebony, in which our subject is name dropped.

-Author David Foster Wallace visited the 2005 AVN event for his short story "Big Red Son" (which later appeared in the collection Consider the Lobster) and mentions there that our subject got a porn award.

-A list from a website of "top" African American porn stars (where our subject ranks 11th)

-A quite respectable British newspaper, The Guardian, is summoned to give evidence but all we get is a mention in its TV listings of the documentary Glamour Girlz about "black girls in porn", in which Midori is briefly mentioned & shown.

-After the Guardian we get the New York Daily News where a small article appeared in 1997 about "Jody's sister doing porn" and how both girls' careers are "on the rise."

-Hopes for a serious citation are rekindled with the link to the Los Angeles Times but the report is actually a movie review, and specifically about an "entertaining documentary on three exotic dancers," among whom is "Michele Watley."

-The "sex & music" magazine Blender contains an article that describes Midori's claim to fame rather accurately: "Eagle-eyed fans can spot Midori among a trio of half-naked girls pleasuring Andrew Dice Clay on the cover of the Dice Man's 2000 album."

-National Post had a 1999 article about our subject, adorned with an eye-candy photo, focusing on the porn-to-music angle. (The newspaper did not show any subsequent interest whatsoever. Neither did the other non-porn sources.)

-In the very lengthy Spin article "The 100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock", we encounter Midori in "moment #44", which is about Kid Rock's "ode to fellatio". We learn incidentally that Kid Rock also "dated and then dumped" our subject. And there's yet another Spin piece dedicated to Kid Rock, where the inevitable (name drop of our subject) happens again.

-Mentions in routine listings, such as this, of music concerts.

-CMJ New Music Monthly ran a piece in 1999 about the fad of rock bands getting porn stars in their videos "to portray that old rock and roll image". Our subject is mentioned among them.

-The rest of the references are porn awards, listings, and write ups. But we have already and firmly established that our subject existed and worked for a time in the porn sector. (She probably would have failed WP:PORNBIO too, were it still in place.)

In sum: What we have here, in all honesty, is a person who did not make any notable waves as a porn performer and then made a very little noticed attempt at a career in singing. The latter would have gone entirely unnoticed were it not for two facts: (a) she was previously in porn, and (b) she has a famous sister. The large quantity hides a dearth of quality. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per expansion by Missvain and WP:BASIC where coverage can be combined to demonstrate notability, especially with the National Post article, Blender, and the documentaries, The Unveiling and Glamour Girlz, themselves. Oh and this source has more coverage about that documentary than the Guardian.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the above new reference is, once again, not about our subject at all but about the documentary Glamour Girlz, which, as already stated, also contains footage of her. And merely asserting that some sources are worthy will not do. No matter how many nothings we may "combine" or add up we still get nothing. -The Gnome (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the documentaries themselves are sources about the subject.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts In all my 14 years of editing I never ever have looked at WP:BASIC until now. Thank you for mentioning it! I guess I've always seen it in passing but never clicked - this is very helpful and surely helps make the case for keeping this article! Missvain (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It pays to revisit WP:BASIC when we talk about "multiple references" and particulary about "combining" them. That guideline is quite clear: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability, i.e. no matter what one tries in combinatorics. I demonstrated above that all the sources cited are far from "substantial" and are actually (possibly lower than) "trivial." But enough is enough. -The Gnome (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have once more expanded and cited the article. I know this won't satisfy The Gnome, but I am just letting other editors and reviewers know. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my duty and said my piece. That's all one can do. -The Gnome (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read both Gnome and Morbidthoughts evaluation of the sources and find the latter more persuasive. Props to Missvain for rescuing this article. If I'd ever encountered this article before her rescue work, I would have been a slam-dunk delete !voter. David in DC (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words David in DC - excited to report the article is now rated as a B level article! Missvain (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we should have more people do what Missvain has done here. Trackinfo (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Missvain's excellent additions. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC based on sources such as [3][4][5][6]. This is a great example of WP:HEYMAN by Missvain TJMSmith (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found, meets GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2020 (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.