Talk:Kandi Barbour

Links
Corrected URL for IAFD entry from commerical site to IAFD. Oldcritter 17:36 10 June 2006
 * What's with the nudity? It seems gratuitous.--204.96.18.5 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.204.48 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Death Investigation
For those who are not aware - in order to track down next of kin, they had to first find out her real identity. They discovered her real name, and her date and place of birth. As well as other bits of her life. It is not what had been previously stated. No one knows for sure (because she is dead and can't be asked), but we can assume that she give a fake name and age because she was working as a minor. I mean, think about it, she turned 18 in 1977, and was already doing porn, not to mention the years of modeling she did prior.

So, before we go changing her information back to Linda Jean Smith 1956, from Kansas - be aware that this has been proven false. It may be what we have always been lead to believe, but it is simply not true. -2601:983:8001:3540:8464:9E5E:6F0A:A8C1 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC) friend of Kandi


 * Be that as it may, Wikipedia requires the use of reliable sources, and you've substituted unsourced statements for statements that appear to be reliably sourced. You need to cite the sources you rely on. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I replaced bad information with good information, whether I added links or not is a separate issue, lol. But, I have since gone back and tried to add sources - whether or not I did it right is another story. Yet, now we have a bigger problem. Some sources are older and still have the wrong information. So, as example, the AVN obituary, which lists her credits, was posted back when she died and still used Linda Jean Smith. Whereas, her movie database page was updated two years later after her real name was discovered. So, sources, reliable, but dated - and therefore conflicting misinformation ensues. 2601:983:8001:3540:8464:9E5E:6F0A:A8C1 (talk)friend of Kandi —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oddly - not all of the references I posted appeared. Could this be because one sentence was already referenced, and when I added another sentence that ended up being from the same source, that it did not save the second reference since it was already referenced in the sentence before? I don't know the answer, I am not big on posting links. I only know that the right information is there now, with an attempt of adding some links, and with most of the duplicate links not actually showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:983:8001:3540:8464:9E5E:6F0A:A8C1 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help? Oh, wait, my mistake, you haven't responded. You've just been reverting. -2601:983:8001:3540:8464:9E5E:6F0A:A8C1 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting the right information out there. And just in time for the 4th anniversary of her death. I am sure that fans will appreciate it. -Neweditorintown (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't do it because of her death anniversary (which, for some reason I thought was later in the month). I did it because it needed done. But it was good timing. Just purely coincidental. -2601:983:8001:3540:D97F:4F1:877E:BB38 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Friend of Kandi

Kandie Lou Dotson
I think it is about time we correct the false name of Linda Jean Smith and false date of birth of 1956. Or at least add a section to the content of the article stating the real information. Particularly since much of her work (prior to her 18th birthday in 1977) is now considered illegal.

Does anyone have a preference as to what way to do it? We shouldn't neglect the false information, because that is what was thought to be real for so long. But no mention of the real information is an injustice to the encyclopedia entry.Kellymoat (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I will begin the process of making sure the correct information is out there.Kellymoat (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect
I agree with those editors who feel that an AfD is called for rather than a unilateral redirect (which I frequently am not shy about doing, even after it's been reverted). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to note that every time the page has been restored it has been reviewed without comment (by 3 separate reviewers, see Page curation log). It seems strange that these reviewers see no reason to delete the page or even leave comment. John B123 (talk)


 * As an NPP and the above is another, I will say our workload is quite heavy. We will review pages just as a firewall to prevent any things that are non wiki to go through, see WP:NPP, and each time a redirect turn into content and likewise, we need to mark it or else it will not be live. There is simply nothing wrong at first glance for this entire article, what are you thinking of for it to delete. It had been kept for 1st deletion, for BLP in general, once notablity established cannot be lost. So really I can't chip in any further, do trash out with the other editors. --Quek157 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC) (Clarified) --Quek157 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since now it is an AN/I, I shall rescue myself from all sort of discussion (exception of the Afd closure as NACR#4, Speedy Keep 2(d) criterion of procedural close). --Quek157 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC) (please look at this --Quek157 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC))


 * AfD will typically go no consensus because some people interpret redirect as delete and others as keep, which remits the decision straight back here. I've long advocated a change to Articles for Discussion, with possible outcomes including redirect and cleanup within 30 days else delete. Either of those would be a possibility for this article: the subject is borderline notable, but the article has never had a single mainstream source. AVN and the like are unreliable, they present only the in-universe kayfabe. My personal standard for a porn bio is substantial direct coverage in at least one non-porn-specific source. Ron Jeremy is an easy pass, as is Stormy Daniels now, but the vast majority of Wikipedia's porn bios have no sources other than writers who are, bluntly, unlikely to be challenged on the objective truth of what they say. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Update
Since I am being ping by an editor at my talkpage and is relevant here, I will state it here
 * Nil Einne Comment


 * With reference to this comment [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kandi_Barbour&diff=841903739&oldid=841902832], while it's fine to remind people of the limits of 3RR, you should not be encouraging edit warring as edit warring is never a good thing even if you keep within the 3RR limit or are not blocked. Remember also that keeping to 3 reverts is not an absolute defence against edit warring blocks either. In other words it's fine to say "This is the limit of 3RR rule, one more revert it is against the rule". But don't follow that up with "please do reverts the next day to be careful". Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My response


 * , not my intention at all but there are very clear sign that reverts are needed, as indicated by admins reverting the entire string as no RS. In addition, some other users reverted back to the original version. This is NO case of edit warring as I read through the entire AN/I issue. This is an issue of BLP compliance. We surely can reverts no matter how much to the correct version and we should supress, redact any comments if necessary, following warning, topic ban (community or otherwise). And do see my timestamp, I clearly indicated that I am rescuing myself from whatsoever since this is an AN/I. I am not willing absolutely to be drag down into this erroneous stuff. As declared by admin Cullen there, this unsourced "death" should never be placed and reverts / ANI is certainly in line. I am just warning the original supressor not to violate the 3RR as this can be a case against Him and the other. I hope this clarifies. I am no way encouraging edit warring. Do look into the issue in depth please. Thanks a lot and have a nice day . --Quek157 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)