Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Knox


 * 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)

Belle Knox

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Several reasons:
 * WP:BLP1E: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:


 * If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
 * If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight t o the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
 * If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented..."

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)
 * Delete I do not e how we can possibly cover this without much better sources and indications that it will be of lasting interest. This is the sort of news story that verges on tabloid, and is therefore one where we should iterpret BLP quite strictly.  DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment: I'm going to try to clean this up, but so far I'm leaning towards "one event". I think that if it is deleted then we should allow someone to incubate it in their userspace until more coverage comes, though. I have a feeling that this will get listed in a textbook somewhere, but right now I'm leery about having this on here given how incredibly nasty the comments and trolling have been about her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Undecided. I'm honestly torn. This sits inbetween the line of notable and non-notable for me. I'm going to remain undecided on this one, but I'd heavily emphasize that I'd like someone to userfy this if it is deleted. I have a very strong suspicion that she'll be mentioned in the future in women's study and human sexuality texts, so if that does happen we can always have a clean copy to pull from. (A feminism WP editor would be best, but I'm willing to put it in my userspace as well.) However I'm kind of unsure as to whether or not we have enough coverage to really justify an article at this time. It could really go either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Shoot, I misread the original article when it came out, so thanks for correcting that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 *  Comment Keep: I'm with Tokyogirl79 on this, it could go either way. The story has recently appeared also on Fox News and New York Post as well as the respectable CBS News. These are very recent entries (5 March 2014) so we are at best only just clearing the single-event hurdle. The CNN report and the CBS article suggests that the story is moving from what started as frankly tabloid titillation to serious discussion, reflection and reportage; the Daily Mail article today (7 March 2014) is a relatively reliable source, being (for those unfamiliar with the British press) somewhere between the red-top tabloids and serious newspapers. Das Bild (in German, 6 March 2014) is similarly on the borderline between serious and glitzy. I'd say the subject was clearly shown to be noteworthy, given that the absurd cost of tuition fees in different countries is driving students to all manner of ploys. Belle Knox has certainly achieved notoriety in a BLP1E manner, and appears very likely to continue to be cited as a prime example by the serious press around the world. Once the New York Times and The Guardian have talked about it, there will be no doubt this should be a Wikipedia article. Right now, it's very close to the required level. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Weak Strong keep. I'm also torn between delete and keep as others editors are, but based on the attention this has been getting I'd say keep. This doesn't appear to be just another porn star being outed, it's actually one who stands up and fights back. Huffington Post puts it a little more into context and The Independent also has it covered. Although this may only be one single event, I think the coverage is worthy of a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjelleklang (talk • contribs) 13:03, 7 March 2014‎ (UTC)
 * 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" . 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". 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)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep When I created this, I thought about the fact that she might not even be notable due to the one even rule. Since then, as mentioned above, I have seen Belle's name in a discussion about the news media and sensationalism, as well as multiple news sites. The fact that she had been communicating on oxJane in order to discuss these events, and not just from a "Hey, look at me!" stand shows that even the smaller news sites have picked up her story and want to run with it as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No offense to the subject or anyone else's rationale, but this isn't a new thing at all; back in the 90's the major networks and Lifetime harangued the public with 'I strip to pay for college' news stories/TV movie adaptations all the time, and this isn't very different from that at all besides the new twist of online harassment. I have WP:BLP1E concerns, along with the usual "speck in the 24 hour news cycle" facet these stories usually get.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 16:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously this is BLP1E/ONEEVENT and rather pruriently so too. Its far too early to see the enduring level of courage needed to overcome 1E and the argument about her going public rather miss the point that she did so to defend herself from personal attacks and abuse. Sorry but there is too much harm here for BLP in what can only ever be a sensational non-educational article. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete I'm going with a "Delete" on this one – there are many, many college girls in the United States that do porn for a living. The only reason this is slightly significant is because of the school she attends; however, the information included here verges on gossip/tabloid and isn't fit for an encyclopedia. Mikecf10 (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like I am badgering here, if you read the article and what Tokyogirl79 wrote above, there is discussion on the legacy of her in the article, and there is probably more out there if I decided to actually look. To call her a porn star is a bit much, but so is putting her amongst the many college students who participate in porn each year, as she decided to come out with her struggle and put a voice to many other situations which occur on college campuses each year. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, while she may have "put a voice" to those situations, her actual legacy remains to be seen. Will this fade after the month, or will this girl go on to be some sort of vocal leader in the industry? I think, for now, its just an intriguing news story. Though, I do understand your point here on the whole. Mikecf10 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that her potential is something that we obviously don't know, as we cannot see into the future (yet). Based on her prior actions, I think she will coast a bit on the fame before it settles down, and we really won't know until another year or two what her overall legacy will be. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete A college girl doing porn is not newsworthy or notable at all. The fact she goes to Duke or the fact her identity got out also does not make this notable.174.108.25.121 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * — 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)


 * Keep: I don't believe she is a low-profile individual, since she wrote two articles about herself in xojane.com. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Just a flash in the media pan. Kaldari (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E....William 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Request: If this is deleted, this will likely need to be salted in order to avoid any potential re-creation. I've already had people trying to get around the protection template on the main page by adding Knox's supposed real name to the talk page. I'm half of a mind to request deletion for the time being because I have a suspicion that it'd only get continually attacked. Now if someone userfys this (I'm willing to volunteer) then I would recommend that the userpage be watched and possibly protected to avoid any attempts to vandalize that page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tokyogirl79, who is doing an excellent job cleaning up the article. Like it or not, this is a very notable case and thus qualifies for its own article. This is an exception to 1E. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I did a Google news search and there are almost 30,000 articles for her. She appeared on CNN Perice Morgan.  She is taking a stand on political issue.  She has spoken out on a womans right to maker her own choice. She has also on the interview on CNN made the comment that she thought this story would go away.  But she said because stood up to defender her self and her choice she is still in the news. I think part of this is true. I don't think she will stay low profile if she does go to law school this will be more news and if she does work to help sex workers for a future career that will make even more news.  While I know this is not strong support. I say keep it up just because she is making news Jsgoodrich (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easily passes the GNG. She does not qualify for BLP1E as she is not a low profile individual considering she's a porn star and she put herself on Piers Morgan. Furthermore her being a porn star who is also a Duke University student is not exactly 1E. If you consider her self-outing as the only notable 1E, her continued media appearances are separate events even if they are derived from the initial outing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, not sure how relevant this is regarding notability in the light of WP:BLP1E but coverage can be found in Spanish newspapers too . Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- it's way too early to assume this is a "single event" person with no lasting repercussions. Will she end up playing a small part in societal's reconsideration of sex workers?  Too early to tell.  Significantly, imho, Andrew Sullivan (one of the most visited political blogs in the world) wrote about her, and had a link to this very Wiki article.  Sholom (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's too early to tell, we should delete the article until we're sure. We should be conservative in cases where lasting notability has not yet been established. Kaldari (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the assumption that way? If it's too early to tell, keep it.  The assumption for many of the "deletes" is that her notability is temporary.  But that's true of most people who break on the scene, at the start.  No harm in keeping the text up there in the meantime.  It's not like it's costing a lot of resources to keep it.  Wikipedia is not paper. Sholom (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not TMZ, either. It's not important for us to be the first ones to get the scoop. LoomisSimmons (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I compare this to the Charles Ramsey issue. He was huge in the media...got worldwide coverage...but is still basically known for a single event, which is why his name redirects to the Ariel Castro kidnappings. I believe George Zimmerman also used to link to an article about the Trayvon Martin murder shooting until he became (in)famous on his own with all of his post-trial behavior. When Belle Knox becomes infamous on her own or does something of merit (other than get exposed by a classmate), then she'll warrant her own article. Until then, she's just some random porn actress with a temporary spotlight. LoomisSimmons (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ramsay wasn't taking a provocative political stand. He was famous for "being there" and for being, generally, quotable.  Knox is currently newsworthy for the stands she is taking, which is why she is quoted in the more serious media than Ramsay was.  The issue of how sex workers are viewed by society is an issue just coming to the forefront, and Knox is, in part, a catalyst.  This is fairly different than Ramsay. Sholom (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Strong political stand"? She's a porn actress talking about porn.LoomisSimmons (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So your political opinion obviously differs from hers. You can't get an article deleted just because you are offended by it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Show me where I said I was offended by this. I'll wait.LoomisSimmons (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: Would this merit a mention in the applicable pages for pornography and its criticism? Maybe Feminist views of pornography or Internet pornography? Or perhaps a mention at Student_debt? This is a reaction to the cost of tuition and how for her, porn was a better option than student loans. She's not the only person who has done something like this, so the subject of this (working in the sex industry as a way of dealing with debt) as a whole would be worth mentioning somewhere, and she could be a brief mention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea, Tokyogirl79. I don't even think she warrants that, but I think it's a reasonable compromise. LoomisSimmons (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is huge interest in her, not just as "the Duke pornstar" but also her message on female empowerment and experiences with the burdens of paying for college. Perhaps we should delete the page for Martin Luther King, Jr. He's really only notable in the context of the civil rights movement. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This girl hasn't said a single thing worth mentioning. Porn is empowering, college is expensive, blah blah blah. What new POV or information has she brought to the table? She sounds like every other porn star out there. She hasn't even done anything of mention in her own profession! And I doubt if what she is doing is life-threatening, or will put everyone around her at rist, or will result in her assassination. Shame on you. LoomisSimmons (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This sounds like you have a strong personal opinion on the topic. You should post in these discussions based upon what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have to say, not your own opinions which aren't worth mentioning. Like it or not, far more people care abot this woman's opinions than yours. DreamGuy (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll post wherever I damn well please. Got a problem with that? Tough. LoomisSimmons (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Loomis, please try to remain civil here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin, don't be a dick swings both ways. LoomisSimmons (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Such inspiring words here. Unlike MLK, there are no allegations of plagiarism. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Tremendous amount of mainstream media coverage and discussion on her and the issues of pornography and 'slut shaming". There are other "porn stars" with Wikipedia pages.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Those porn stars have done things of note in their profession Mikecf10 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easily passes the WP:GNG. Not a one event person as she made multiple pornos . I did a search on her and there was a lot of returns. Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Not a one event person as she made multiple pornos." So what? Search results mean jack about notability, and WP:PORNBIO has a far far higher bar than you set. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The coverage on this event is worldwide. This topic has far more non-trivial coverage in reliable sources than a good chunk of this encyclopedia. Nomination is bizarr. DreamGuy (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But if the articles are all about one event, the fact that BK is a college student doing porno, WP:BLP1E overrides that fact. Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep insist on characterizing her as just a porn star? She is being covered because she took a stand for herself and fought back against those who tried to silence and shame her. You are no better yourself if you keep countering every recent keep vote with meaningless notability criteria. She has widespread coverage and it goes beyond her just making a few films that involve sex. I know that you are probably not doing it intentionally, but going after these keep votes is harassment by Wikipedia standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I never characterized her as a "porn star". Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, as I meant to imply that when you focus on one aspect of her work and ignore everything else (i.e. the coverage about her which doesn't talk about her film work, which is a lot when compared to people who actually have awards for this stuff), you can easily blanket over the other things that she has done. I'm not pointing at you in that previous sentence, but having tunnel vision in something like this doesn't serve to help this debate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extensive media coverage clearly indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:BLP1E Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep extensive media coverage satisfies WP:GNG - so much so the pundits seem to think this could damage her future professional aspirations. Sure, she might be the flavor-of-the-month in porn strumpets (Melissa King now redirects to a section on Miss Delaware Teen USA that calls her performance frigid), but the coverage on this one is significant and likely will have larger implications. Well, I gather she's notable per the reputable news sources enough to have Wikipedia spread the word. I think that word is "legs". Sad commentary on women's studies. --ColonelHenry (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, "extensive media coverage" means nothing if it's all around ONE event. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Arbor, I dare you to proposed to delete the articles on Ramzi Yousef, Casey Anthony or Ed Gein and about 1,000,000 other articles on that rationale--all of them were "one-hit wonders" as well.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insofar as the case has been a fulcrum for discussions about gender roles, the accetability or lack thereof as pornographic actors as legitimate professions, et al, Belle Knox is a sparking incident. But it's still one-event coverage with some BLP concerns. As such I think BLP1E trumps. As noted elsewhere, discussion around the topic may in fact by relevant in non-person-centered articles, but a biography is not the place for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Spoonkymonkey and Mosfetfaser. Article should be moved though to reflect her actual name - [redacted] - which is now a well publicized fact. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem (as others have mentioned) is that we have no way of knowing if the name is true or not. It probably is, but as one of those sources say:  Several blogs identified her as [redacted]. . We normally wouldn't consider a blog a reliable source, so why should we do that now? Bjelleklang -  talk 20:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - People are using WP:BLP1E as a justification to delete this article. But that argument is becoming less and less convincing as news coverage shifts from college student turned porn actress to other major issues in our society like woman's right, freedom, bullying to even whether U.S. college is overpriced. This is no longer one event, IMO. Reliable sources no longer cover Knox solely in the context of porn, but have extended to other issues as well. Whether Knox remains a low-profile individual remains to be seen, but it is not unreasonable to assume that she would be cited as an example in literatures regarding woman's freedom or bullying of sex workers.— Chris! c / t 23:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The facts are, Knox meets the DEFINITION of a BLP1E because:
 * "...reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Right now she's only known for her porn side projects.
 * "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Will anyone care about Belle Knox in 1, 2, 5, 10 years? consider that.
 * 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)


 * Will anyone care about Belle Knox in 1, 2, 5, 10 years? No one can say for sure. That is the problem. And I argue that this is beyond one event at this point. The dialogue has gone from porn to bigger issues that I mentioned earlier.— Chris! c / t 00:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Back when the story first broke, this would have been a BLP1E issue, with the event being "outing of a Duke University porn student." But as the story has gone on, she's being used in other context, in other stories - "porn student outed for doing porn" and "porn student had to do porn to pay for school" are different stories, as the second has been standing alone in independent coverage, divorced from the first story.  She's not a low-profile individual at this point and I don't think, even if she was, that we're even dealing with one event anymore.  The variety of coverage of this individual strongly suggests to me that that she falls squarely within the general notability guidelines.  Guidelines for porn notability don't really apply here either as the basis of the arguments for her notability aren't based on her personal accomplishments in the pornographic industry, they're based on the general guidelines.  It's irrelevant that Lee Harvey Oswald fails WP:SOLDIER because his notability is derived from another story, even if the abilities he trained in were utilized in that other story.  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete-Archive and reevaluate later  - the creation of this article was just way too soon. Literally a couple of hours before this article was created, User:Rebecca1990 and I were discussing the idea of this article, but agreed that it would be an obvious BLP1E violation. Granted its an unfortunate situation for the student, but other than the mention that I've added to the Tasha Reign article and any related references, this person does not seem to warrant their own article at this time. per SportFan below, changed my mind. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of coverage and clearly beyond a single event now: the article is not only about the outing event. - Altenmann >t 06:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This boils down to a passing phenomenon and one event, with no broad and long lasting coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep She is feature on rue89 (in French), I think is strong notoriety.  Maybe we should revisit the pertinence of this article in a few years, but for now she is getting enough attention in a lot of different media to justify keeping the article. --Guillcote (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets GNG, and well beyond BLP1E, which is more to cover someone embarrassing themselves, and being caught on video, and notable for only that, usually against their wishes. This is someone leveraging their situation, and media spotlight, to speak on issues important to them. The rest is clean-up issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * That's a compelling argument in my opinion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe that given the media coverage of her, she satisifies WP:GNG, beyond the requirements of WP:PORNBIO and/or WP:BLP1E. Canuck 89 (converse with me)  02:22, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Relevant, perhaps weak on WP:PORNBIO, but this could evolve further into privacy rights, women's rights, etc. Calebrw (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: We're currently having a discussion on the article's talk page whether or not to add Knox's real name to the article, so anyone interested in contributing should come there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to Belle Knox controversy, where we can talk about her outing, her attempt to mix feminism with supporting porn, and her arguing that men who watch porn should be looked upon with shame the same way as women who film themselves for porn. This has sparked a considerable debate about the above topics and is therefore notable--but by "this" I mean the outing, not Knox herself. In short, the event is notable, but Knox isn't. Jinkinson   talk to me  18:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)]
 * 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)
 * 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)]
 * 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)


 * Keep Fails PORNBIO but passes WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Everyone seems to be missing the point about WP:BLP1E! Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, the point of BLP1E is to protect people from being publicly shamed for a one-time mistake, or embarrassing moment caught on video, or otherwise publicized. Like an obese person, who falls down, and the video becomes a well-documented meme. This is simply a different situation. There is no one event, but a series of related events, including her own efforts to publicize her side of the story, in at least three media forums. As it stands now, she is working to control the messages about her, and use the platform to talk about issues important to her. The article perhaps doesn't meet Pornbio, but it doesn't meet BLP1E. It does meet GNG. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * Arbor, I have been watching your actions here, and I respect your opinion. However, since you nominated this almost a week ago, two-thirds of the community has supported keeping this article, and there has been continuous coverage of her in the news. Additionally, you have continued to point out to some of those people that she is not notable. You made a point the first time when you nominated this thing, and continued harassment of other editors is not acceptable. None of the supporters ever said that she passed PORNBIO (heck, I as the article creator never even thought she did), and she clearly has other coverage available. By continuing to state that she is subject to PORNBIO (and continually placing messages throughout this discussion to that effect), you are ignoring the fact that she is a social activist and degrading her role in society. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbor, you seem not to understand the second criteria of BLP1E, specifically what makes a low profile individual. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not sure it completely fails PORNBIO, but I would rather see the article kept. Web Warlock (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. People who want this article deleted should find a more compelling argument than WP:BLP1E. First, the same nominator, in his deletion rationale, basically says this is not a BLP1E case ("So far this person's life seems to meet the first 2 of these 3 criterion" when BLP1E requires each of three conditions to be met). Furthermore, actually, the subject seems to fail every BLP1E criterium, as the person is no longer being covered by reliable sources just in the context of a single event, the person is not a low-profile individual, and her individual's role is substantial. Cavarrone 06:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So NAME the second event that makes Knox notable. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was explained to you by a half dozen of editors, just read what Sportfan5000, Kevin Rutherford or CoffeeCrumbs wrote above. Then, drop the stick. Cavarrone 19:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP1E with all this tabloid media coverage, some of the keep rationales are flawed, stating that she doesn't meet WP:BLP1E because she did movies and so forth, the news coverage borderlines on tabloid junk, and she's been accepting of that personality. But per our guidelines, the policy is clear. Secret account 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep per my analysis above. No valid rationale given, not a WP:BLP1E per nominator's own analysis. Cavarrone 20:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * DELETE or ADD REAL NAME. She is not notable except for the fact she was "outed".  Without her real name, this article has no reason to exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.182.230 (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus has gone against using her real name, and that it is needed for the article at this time. Also it seems consensus is forming here that she is notable without the name being used. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)]


 * Keep: This topic became a national story that was followed on CNN, Huffington Post and other major news outlets. It was a story because of the high cost of a college education would cause a student to consider choosing to perform in adult films, which is not really viewed in a positive manner by a majority of people.  It then got further notice when the actress defended it as her choice which is an issue because many people see adult film as exploitative for the people in the films.  Therefore I think this article should be kept as a reference, even though it is an awkward topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavM (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. WP:GNG is exactly what it says it is: a general guideline. It's supplemented by policies like WP:BLP, other guidelines like WP:PORNBIO, and good judgment. Knox fails PORNBIO by a mile like thousands of other college students who do sex work, so we're in the slightly fuzzier area of whether her response to her otherwise routine outing makes her notable. I think it's fairly clear from WP:1E that it doesn't, and honestly I don't see how you can read that guideline and think otherwise. Some of the policy-based keep !votes seem to really be arguing that her outing is notable as an event, which per Jinkinson would necessitate moving the article to Belle Knox controversy or Belle Knox outing. But as several editors point out above, pornstar outings are routine and hence out by WP:DOGBITESMAN. There's been more coverage than usual, but the dog bite does not become notable when Piers Morgan interviews the man about it; see WP:SENSATION. This is a textbook example of the sort of routine event that WP:EVENTCRIT rules out explicitly. Last, but certainly not least, WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy, of which WP:BLP1E is just one piece. It exists to prevent Wikipedia from joining this sort of frenzy around a living person, for reasons of ethics and liability. We have a responsibility to avoid participating in her outing. Lagrange613 23:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENTCRIT itself supports keeping, Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline. I also suggest this is no routine outing and that has this caged correctly, a national story because of the circumstances, followed by her unrepentant confronting of the circumstances. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)  [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * 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)
 * 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)]
 * 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)
 * 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)]


 * 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)


 * Defer decision for a couple of months per WP:RAPID. As an individual who appears to have no issue "owning" her 15 minutes there is no reason to rush to deletion here, but if she falls out of the news cycle without any additional developments then I think her lack of notability will be apparent with some time for perspective. VQuakr (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, so any other AFD for her would come up with the same results. The fact that the news is still reporting on her over a week after this began is proof that she is not one event, contrary to what some of the above editors may think. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Seconding that it isn't a noteworthy article, and traffic will most likely reduce to near-zero when the story is out of the news. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep At the very least Miss Knox is worth a paragraph in articles about tuition fees, or student loans in the US. That 18-year-olds are asked to choose between graduating with debt and becoming a sex worker is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.147.8 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 March 2014‎ (UTC)
 * There's a source for that too, a Leeds University study, at least in regard to stripping and erotic dancing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete AFAICT, this is a "single event story" which has been picked up by popular media -- but that does not change the "single event" nature of the entire story. She is not notable except for the "outing" and without the "outing" she would remain totally unknown.   This is a policy based !vote -- and the !votes based on "it has a lot of coverage" do not negate BLP1E.  Votes based on it being about tuition etc. are simply not relevant to this discussion IMHO, and should be discounted notably. Collect (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the essence of BLP1E in this case. Knox isn't being shamed by any one event that she regrets, she was outed because of her porn work, and then went on national television talking about the underlying issues that came out of those many incidents. You can't unring a bell here by declaring she is only notable for the outing, whether that's true or not, it has happened, and she did not run away or hid from the events. She stood up and faced the bullies and threats head on. The only issue is do we wait for her to reveal her own name, or do we decide what is the tipping point for including it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * 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)
 * 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)]


 * Delete There is no biography to write. It's a news article.  Details of her life are problematic including using her name.  If we had an article on porn stars working their way through college, she may be mentioned as one in that article but there is too much privacy invasion and WP:BLP1E for a biography.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * The article as it stands now, seems to be a decent biography actually. Even if she does nothing else, and we never know her real name, there is a preponderance of reliable sources, including her many interviews on national media, that support what we currently have. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * Delete - per nom. --Malerooster (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lagrange613's thoughtful analysis. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep' I see a great need. 23:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6027:7F:5D6C:BE24:3540:D5E2 (talk)  User has made few if any other edits  Collect (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lagrange613's assessment here and at the related WP:BLPN thread. Roberticus  talk  23:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: With all due respect to those who feel this article should be kept, I think this is the canonical example of WP:BLP1E. The article subject is an otherwise low-profile individual notable in the context of a single event and the ensuing news coverage. MastCell Talk 00:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename as we'd do for the event. We have Duke precedents: 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy, Duke lacrosse case, Heather Sue Mercer-Duke Football case, etc.  Perhaps 2014 Duke student porn controversy--Milowent • hasspoken  00:27, 19 March 2014 (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.