Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Little


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 06:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Alice Little

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article previously deleted as G11. Current article sourced almost entirely to the subject's website, plus a blog; there is one mention in the Irish Sun (can't use a tabloid to establish notability), and a short CNN interview in an article about a campaign the was involved in. I find a couple of other brief mentions in news media online, but don't see anything that would demonstrate she passes WP:GNG. Girth Summit  (blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit  (blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Also reads like an advertisement. Highway 89 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Art is full of OR based mostly on the subject's website. Agree it seems to be essentially an advert. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

For consideration: her profile in huffington post personal more than qualifies as person of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Created for promotional purposes only. This is a comissioned work created by an undisclised paid editor . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/legal-sex-worker-couples-communication_n_5ca78600e4b0a00f6d3f2a14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC) BBC news documentary of subject

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06ktbgc?ocid=socialflow_facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/sex-worker-freedom-nevada-holds-steady Cato Institute podcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilysmith/sex-workers-sesta-censorship-free-speech Buzzfeed article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/alice-little/ Independent news article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - not seeing the significant, in-depth, independent coverage to attest the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. The lack of indepedant coverage is the pressing issue; the subject is mentioned in several sources, but almost all of the information is WP:PRIMARY (much of which stems from Little's self-written bio in the Huffington Post) and thus does not confer notability on the subject. The article is also overly promotional, which contradicts WP:NOTADVOCACY. More independent sources—especially those which actually make a case for Little having a claim to encyclopedic notability—would be required.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The refs in the article are no sufficient to assure me that she is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep She meets WP:AUTHOR based on the cultural impact of the article she wrote. Page should not be deleted. Clean up promotion and add more citations. Rocktober2018 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR is a redirect to WP:CREATIVE, a notability category that has fairly solid notability requirements. The question is, can it credibly be said that any non-primary source cited in the article (or that could potential be added to the article) directly indicates the subject meets the points below WP:CREATIVE without inference.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Just about meets notability guidelines. I have added some more references. --John B123 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm - I took a look at those. You added her YouTube channel, and her 'Guest Writer' profile on HuffPost - neither of those help with notability. You also added a soft-soap puffy interview with Refinery 29 (primary, doesn't help establish notability). The best was probably the Irish Central piece - but to be honest, it's hard to see that as anything but a piece of churnalism - it's just rehashing details from her own website, and her HuffPost piece about herself. I can't see anything of this contributing to notability. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Or to look at it another way, the fact that Irish Central, which as far as I'm aware is accepted as a RS, churnalises(?) an article about her, then they must think her notable enough for inclusion.--John B123 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt that IrishCentral would stand up to any scrutiny as an RS - writing an article based entirely on quotes from her own website, and from an article she wrote about herself, does not chime well with the 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' that WP:RS calls for. Maybe it does proper journalism as well, but literally just copying a few quotes from her own self-publicity does not strike me as the sort of reliable coverage we're looking for.  Girth Summit  (blether)  22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I created the page originally, and have tried to cut back some of the fluff. I might suggest reposting, and getting rid of some of the clutter on this page for a better discussion.  One thing I've noticed is the general lack of sex worker coverage in mainstream GNG sources, which probably leads to a bigger discussion. Baguettelover (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree about the press coverage, the same applies to porn stars. There is of course also a moralistic attitude of some editors who target articles related to the sex industry. Whilst we argue about the quality of references, the unreferenced tag is used on 225,283 articles, some of which have had the tag for years, yet no nomination for deletion. 56K followers on Twitter shows notability to a lot of people, but unfortunately WP doesn't work that way. --John B123 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * John B123 I don't know whether you were including me in your 'some editors' above? FWIW, I don't believe I've ever nominated any article connected to the sex industry or to pornography to AfD before (feel free to check), and I certainly don't target such pages, I just volunteer at WP:NPP. Working my way through the back end of the queue, I came across this article and reviewed it according to standard NPP guidelines. I found that it did not contain sufficient independent sources to establish notability per GNG, and I couldn't find sufficient sourcing upon searching - so, I nominated to AfD. That's standard procedure with new articles. As for the 225,283 articles you refer to - other stuff exists. The fact that there are unreferenced articles out there is not a reason to deviate from our notability standards on this article. If you want to establish a new notability guideline that applies to people who have a lot of Twitter followers but aren't covered in independent reliable sources, you will need to establish consensus for that. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My comments were certainly not directed at you, but was a general comment. I have been involved in other AfD discussions where there were comments along the lines of "Delete - Nobody wants to read about prostitution on Wikipedia". The same editors tend join in all the AfDs for a given subject. Most discussions have 10 or less editors so half a dozen regulars with a similar outlook skew the decision. Effectively, out of millions of members, or even thousands of active members, only the views of a handful count. "Consensus" isn't really that when it's only the "consensus" of a small fraction of 1% of editors. I find a lot of WP policies, guidelines and processes fundamentally flawed. Taking notability for example; a scientist in a very specialist micro-field of study may have published significant papers in that field, those works cited by many etc, so far exceeds the notability requirements. We end up with an article, no matter how good, that very few people will read because it is such a specialised area. On the other hand, we have articles on popular people that are of interest to a far greater audience that are deleted for notability. In pre-internet day, the only way of verifying facts was by printed matter. WP hasn't moved on that far from those days. Whilst it accepts online sources for verification, generally that is only the online version of printed matter (or previously printed sources that are now online only). Social media has changed the way "news" is reported, sometimes going to social media only. Although this can be problematic, in that I can post "fake news" if I wanted, taking a stance that all social media is unreliable is to shut off to a lot of information.


 * Again, not directed at anybody in this discussion, whilst obviously WP needs to be policed, the policing is very subjective at times and policies and guidelines are used to further personal views of what WP should or should not include, and a blind eye turned at other times to the same end. WP comes across at times as having too high a proportion of "school teachers" telling people what they are doing wrong, often in a less than friendly way, compared to the number who are trying contribute to the knowledge base. --John B123 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – Blatant advert. None of the sources supports notability per WP:GNG and no evidence the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. GSS (talk |c|em ) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Besides the links above (from those pretty much only the BBC link is relevant and a quality link, the rest is irrelevant, the Huffington Post one even says Alice Little Guest Writer which makes it a self-published source) I took the pains of clicking on the "news" (search) link in the AfD template. Here are a couple (at least slightly interesting) results I found: The Irish Sun: Sexy 4ft 8 Irish lass reckons she’s the highest paid hooker in America – raking in $1MILLION a year, XBIZ: Veteran shutterbug Frank Thomas to Guest on 'CannaPornia' Tonight (XBIZ is "the adult industry's leading publisher of business news and information"), Mirror: America's 'highest paid sex worker' on $1m a year 'wants to help people connect', ProSieben/Taff: Alice Little: Die bestbezahlteste Prostituierte der USA (geoblocked, Taff is a "lifestyle" i.e. tabloid magazine of German commercial TV channel ProSieben), Nový Čas: Najdrahšie platená prostitútka: Jej cieľom je spájať sa zmyslupným spôsobom, neuveríte koľko si zarobí! (Novy Cas is the most popular Slovak tabloid newspaper), The Sun: America’s ‘highest-earning’ legal prostitute reveals what life is really like working in a brothel plus some other tabloid newspapers from additional countries (e.g. Poland and Belgium) and tons of local US newspapers (who only mentioned her name in a single sentence). No, this is NOT a notable person, rather someone who's working overtime to become famous. It's also a pity that the ghostwriters she has hired don't know how to google properly even. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - multiple articles confirm notability. She was profiled extensively by ABCs nightline for her work with hookers for healthcare https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/hookers-health-care-fighting-trumpcare-48716509 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiCo702 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)  — username (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See WP:SIGCOV - she was mentioned and briefly interviewed in that news piece, which is about a political pressure group she's involved with - it's not about her, and does not give significant coverage about her. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Accurate information — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristineBriannaMaggio (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)  — username (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm afraid that's rather missing the point - we're not discussing whether it's accurate or not. Please actually read the nomination, and the notability guidelines, then feel free to make an argument based on them. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, two fresh & brand new accounts created today with only a single edit each that happens to be on this (fairly obscure) page. Just a note for the puppet master (you know who you are!): the WP:SPI process has been created exactly for cases like these. -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading the article, I think that it needs to be rewritten entirely. Not written in a encyclopedic tone. Otherwise delete. The page author clearly has COI and most likely they were paid. <u style="color:#087643;font-face:arial;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Masum Reza <sup style="color:orange;">📞 20:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regarding article status, an editor seeming to have substantial real-world connection to the subject has stated several times, e.g. here and here, that the subject did indeed pay to have the article created. If this is true, it seems NUKEIT is in order. Agricola44 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is true, Agricola44, that editor has said stuff along those lines a few times in different venues. I've actually been considering whether I should ask an admin to revdel those comments though, they are probably a BLP violation since we don't have any evidence that what they are saying is true. I do think the article should be ditched for the lack of notability, and the likelihood that it was WP:UPE strengthens my opinion on that, but still I'm not comfortable with these accusations remaining visible. - since you voted on this and have communicated with Cyber69surfer about the paid editing stuff, your thoughts on this would be appreciated - do their comments (particularly their more recent ones here, now self-deleted but still visible in the page history) need to be removed?  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article and its history have all the hallmarks of a comissioned work. UPE is definitely against policy. With nearly 6mio articles, en.Wiki does not need to keep every possibly keepable article just because it can be kept. Deleting this article will also send a message to its subject that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a vanity platform. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree the comments should be removed from the page history. We have know way of knowing if the comments were accurate or even genuine. --John B123 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.