Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Knox (2nd nomination)


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 15:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The previous AfD was closed as delete, after a fairly heated debate and subsequent deletion review. The article has been recently recreated, following the release this week of a documentary miniseries about the subject of the article. This additional coverage could address the primary policy-based deletion argument of WP:BLP1E. As nominator, my !vote at this time is neutral. If the result of this discussion is keep, I request that the previous article be temporarily restored as a basis for expanding the new article. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Still BLP1E. This documentary still doesn't push the subject over the threshold, however I agree with nominator that if kept, the original article should be restored to assist rebuilding this article .Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 04:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * keep Now about as notable as any other actress that participates in this genre. Being ejaculated upon makes no difference.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 07:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relister's comment: After this discussion was closed as "speedy delete", a review at Deletion review/Log/2014 September 21 resulted in the decision to reopen and relist this discussion, which is hereby done.  Sandstein   12:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ridiculously easy speedy strong keep Tons of sources discussing her in depth, many of which are not just about her getting doxxed, but about other aspects of her life and career.
 * The documentary (Which is itself directly a sign of notability, and then secondary notability via 3rd party coverage of the documentary)
 * http://decider.com/2014/09/16/becoming-belle-knox/?_ga=1.175144806.591063513.1401287573
 * http://www.salon.com/2014/09/16/a_lot_of_my_life_has_been_ruined_because_of_sex_belle_knox_opens_up_in_a_gripping_new_documentary/
 * http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/conde-nasty-hard-knox-article-1.1946093
 * http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/09/17/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-in-conde-nast-docu-series-says-line-between-adult/
 * http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/the_3_biggest_myths_about_pornography_debunked_by_belle_knox_partner/
 * http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/09/watch-the-sfw-ish-duke-porn-star-documentary.html
 * http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/24/belle-knox-docu-series-sex-work-is-labor
 * http://persephonemagazine.com/2014/09/when-conde-nast-met-adult-entertainment-becoming-belle-knox/
 * Reality TV Show HOST
 * http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/belle-knox-host-x-rated-reality-show-sex-factor-article-1.1808954
 * http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/videos/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-explains-new-reality-show-the-sex-factor-20140529
 * http://time.com/53171/duke-porn-star-sex-factor-porn-reality-tv/
 * http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/05/30/porn-star-belle-knox-to-host-racy-reality-show/
 * http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/blogs/smitten/2014/06/the-sex-factor-reality-show
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2598821/Duke-porn-star-lands-gig-reality-Belle-Knox-host-Web-based-competition-The-Sex-Factor.html
 * http://pagesix.com/2014/04/07/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-lands-on-web-show-the-sex-factor/?_ga=1.40328807.439279612.1320980827
 * http://www.salon.com/2014/06/08/meet_the_mystery_man_behind_a_new_reality_tv_porn_show/
 * Outing (Event 1)
 * http://www.ibtimes.com/meet-belle-knox-duke-university-porn-star-reveals-porn-name-after-bullies-target-student-photo
 * http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/03/05/belle-knox-duke-porn-student-university-pornography
 * http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/creating-a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making-among-journalists-and-those-who-care-about-democracy/241920/duke-students-lesson-in-crowd-behavior/
 * General porn bio/minor celeb
 * http://www.xojane.com/sex/duke-university-freshman-porn-star
 * http://nypost.com/2014/03/18/duke-porn-star-i-regret-my-first-scene/
 * http://nypost.com/2014/03/10/how-the-duke-porn-stars-dad-learned-about-what-she-was-doing/
 * http://articles.philly.com/2014-04-10/entertainment/49003110_1_pornhub-duke-university-spokane
 * http://spectator.org/articles/58617/school-belle-knox
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/19/becoming-belle-knox-duke-porn-star-documentary_n_5845624.html
 * http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/belle-knox-19th-birthday-party-report/
 * http://www.maxim.com/sex-relationships/the-belle-knox-guide-threesomes
 * http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/06/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-is-building-her-brand-one-strip-club-at-a-time.html
 * http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/duke_porn_star_belle_knox_real_name_death_threats_school.html
 * http://theweek.com/article/index/266434/what-if-your-daughter-was-a-porn-star
 * http://www.latinpost.com/articles/9220/20140320/belle-knox-duke-universitys-miriam-weeks-regrets-facial-abuse-scene-might-drop-out-wikipedia-deleted.htm
 * http://blogs.rue89.nouvelobs.com/americanmiroir/2014/03/12/la-sexualite-des-etudiantes-chaud-debat-sur-les-campus-americains-232498
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2014/02/27/google-duke-freshman-porn-star-dont-be-surprised-by-what-you-see/?tid=pm_lifestyle_pop
 * http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/02/26/3656545_duke-porn-star-puts-university.html?rh=1
 * (Rolling stone, printed in May 8 2014 issue) http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-blue-devil-in-miss-belle-knox-meet-duke-porn-star-miriam-weeks-20140423
 * http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-tells-all-in-new-issue-of-rolling-stone-20140422
 * http://www.badoink.com/lifestyle/interview-belle-knox-on-gender-politics-and-porn/
 * Playboy interview http://www.playboy.com/articles/duke-porn-star-belle-knox
 * Scholarships/Financial Aid
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/duke-porn-star-tuition-income_n_5504420.html
 * http://time.com/2873280/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-college-cost/
 * http://nypost.com/2014/06/18/wisdom-of-a-college-porn-star/
 * Pope Center http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=3069#.VCnM1PnP3sC
 * http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/09/adult-film-star-duke-student-talks-college-affordability
 * Radio and TV show appearances and mentions
 * Howard Stern via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9F86xNk6l0
 * Dr Drew radio via Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhl5mBJPFGA
 * Opie and Anthony via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwsLOpDBYg&feature=youtu.be
 * CNN Dr Drew http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1403/17/ddhln.01.html
 * The View http://abc.go.com/shows/the-view/video/most-popular/VDKA0_o1o5jns6
 * The View #2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_GxGxh6eU
 * Piers Morgan http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/06/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-to-have-that-sexual-autonomy-it-is-so-incredibly-freeing/?hpt=pm_mid
 * Voice America http://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/78069/belle-knox-on-becoming-a-college-porn-star
 * Peter Schiff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-JIK5_xE5E
 * "Ham Radio Show" interview - not sure how notable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6HmiI0cDjk
 * 97.5 "On the couch with Tony and HArry" interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xaRdr4d270
 * Fox 411 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xgkX8tI4D0
 * Used on Jimmey Kimmel http://video.foxnews.com/v/3365581541001/jimmy-kimmel-borrows-fox411s-duke-porn-star-joke/#sp=show-clips
 * Artie Lange show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ1VsWYa0G0
 * HLN Jane Velez https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63ldApTFJX4
 * The_Independents_(TV_show) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm_oWLwzxkE
 * John Stossel http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3791374827001/stossel-09032014-back-to-school/?playlist_id=1794596212001#sp=show-clips
 * Bethenny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoIuTw4TqQk

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - the online reality show has not been proven notable, and the rest of the coverage is pretty typical one event stuff. I would change my mind if she meets the criteria for adult actress notability or if the show becomes noteworthy.  Sea photo Talk  16:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * there is no requirement in WP:BASIC for the sources themselves to be notable. VQuakr (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I wasn't referring to the quality of the source, but the online show she will be hosting. It's notability is germane to the discussion.  Sea photo Talk  01:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment, should this be kept, which is going to be a "who shows up, who closes it" toss-up because the subject matter deals with SEX, please note I preserved the old version outside wikipedia here for expansion purposes.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hard to see any argument remaining for WP:BLP1E. Coverage includes multiple and unrelated events (the original outing, subsequent media appearances, selection as reality show host, strip club tour, release of documentary miniseries, etc.). Gaijin42 provides ample sources. Knox is a public figure for multiple reasons, and shows no signs of "otherwise remaining...a low-profile individual." WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. MA101Wiki (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and noting that editors with only 1 edit may find their !votes discounted more than toys at Wal-Mart . No sign of any actual enduring notability at all, which means that maybe this could be merged into "unusual jobs of undergraduates" but the person is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Collect (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How many months of sustained coverage do you think is a sign of enduring notability? Did you look at the list of sources above? If that doesn't pass WP:GNG (not to mention crushing WP:PORNBIO #3) what percentage of wikipedia BLPs do you think could survive that burden?Gaijin42 (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DNB, "While it is fine to point a new user who has made a mistake towards the relevant policy pages, it is both unreasonable and unfriendly to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, Articles for Deletion discussions, etc., until they "gain more experience." Please point "editors with only 1 edit" toward the policies they are violating, rather than suggesting that their contributions are less relevant than those of more established users. MA101Wiki (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a "new user" and one whose first-ever edit is on an AfD discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that a better way to phrase this would be "Editors that have signed up with the sole purpose of posting in this AfD need to be aware that they can be seen as single purpose accounts and as such, will make sure to cite relevant policies. Editors that have made few or no edits outside of this topic and that appear to be making arguments that would fall within WP:NOT and/or is based more upon a personal opinion/viewpoint may be considered less helpful to the discussion and potentially considered to have very little impact on the overall consensus. Please remember that AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and that the final decision will be made based upon the arguments posed and whether or not they are seen to fall within the applicable guidelines." That's a little lengthy, but it does somewhat sum up the SPA essay and NOTAVOTE in a more diplomatic approach. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Gaijin. Easily passes GNG.  Also fulfills PORNBIO #3.  Dismas |(talk) 00:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I started this AfD I procedurally !voted neutral, but I think there is adequate and ongoing coverage of the subject to indicate that WP:BLP1E no longer applies (particularly items #1 and #2). VQuakr (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since the history was restored, I've pulled one of the older version of the article and restored it since it is more fleshed out as a whole. It will need to be updated, of course, but I don't entirely want people to come in here and judge notability based on the stubbified version of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The thing about citing WP:BLP1E is that sometimes that one event can actually have lasting repercussions. Knox has been the focus of relatively steady coverage since her debut. As others have pointed out, 1E is typically reserved for instances where the individual is known for something like "woman who can bench press a Buick with her teeth" or "Taylor Swift's ex-best friend from high school speaks out about being snubbed at this awards event"- basically people who are known for something that is all but guaranteed to be a blip in the pan and is extremely unlikely to gain substantial additional coverage once the initial fervor has died down. A wonderful example of this would be the Ikea Monkey. In this particular incident Knox has gained a LOT of coverage and while admittedly the coverage isn't as overwhelmingly large now as it was when this all hit the net back in March, it's still fairly steady and regular. Regardless of how she got media attention, Knox is still getting attention in the media on a regular basis. The reality series hasn't aired yet as far as I know, but she did get coverage for that and there is the documentary series- which has released and has received quite a bit of coverage. The article does need some editing overall for content, tone, and so on, especially as far as dates go- I just noticed that there aren't any dates for when a lot of things happened, so that'll need to be fixed. I also recommend semi-protecting the article because I can absolutely guarantee that this will be a vandalism magnet once people on certain sites realize that it's been re-created. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've found where the media coverage of Knox has been listed in a journal article about English newspaper titles. She's not given a main focus as the paper is about newspaper titles and how they have to be written in a specific way to gain precious clicks, but it does show that this is more than one event. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the conditions of WP:BLP1E are not met here. Given Knox's own writing and public appearances, and the recent documentary, I don't see her as someone who "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". She seems to be parlaying the attention from the outing incident into a sort of career. I think there's enough secondary source coverage to establish notability.GabrielF (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There are adequate reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Furthermore, as Ms. Knox continues to pursue a career, including now the documentary, it seems she has declined to remain a low-profile individual as required by WP:BLP1E.-- danntm T C 06:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * comment I am neutrally notifying the commenters from the original AFD via AWB. I asked Sandstein about this prior to starting. User_talk:Sandstein Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Miss Knox is well-recognized as a hero for freedom of sexuality. She did not run and hide when 'outed'; she embraced the rightness of her chosen profession. That is what made her notable/reported on to begin with. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. No policy based reason for deletion. Notability is well established. Plenty of extremely notable reliable sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no biography to write. It's news. 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. There are also WP:ONEEVENT and WP:AVOIDVICTIM if editors contort themselves past BLP1E (note, ONEEVENT is different than BLP1E).  One day she may graduate and wish this to all be in her past yet we will immortalize this bio permanently as prurient sideshow that is not encyclopedic.  That's as pure a violation in both the spirit and letter of the BLP policy and guidelines as any.  WP is not a random collection of information.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Be a little careful about saying that we should delete this based upon speculation that Knox may want this removed one day. I know that this isn't the only thing in your argument, but until Knox herself asks for its deletion we should not automatically assume that she will want this removed based upon the idea that she will see her past as personally harmful for her career. To date she has not said anything that would show that she would try to hide or obscure her past once she completes her degree. I'm not saying that we shouldn't potentially protect people or respect their wishes, just that we aren't trying to provide protection where the person has not requested any and where it could also potentially be detrimental to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Our BLP policies are not based on requests by the subjects. Avoiding harm is one of the key tenets.  That a bio of a young adult filled with titillating and prurient detail that essentially exist because of doxxing should not be what Wikipedia biographies are about.  There are countless college-aged women that work in some form of adult entertainment yet have no bio because they haven't been doxxed.  People interested in the real name and university address of females that work in strip clubs or perform in adult movies can find other sources.  We don't need to immortalize doxxed identities here and that is the only reason she stands out from the countless others.  It is not empowering her by immortalizing her doxxing nor is it empowering for young women to learn that once their real name is known, WP will create and maintain her link to a stage name simply because we can.  If she didn't want anonymity, she wouldn't have a stage name.  It's that simple, really.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Initially she wanted to keep her real name hidden and we respected that in the first incarnation of the article. However since that point Knox has come out with a documentary series where she releases her real name. Also, whether or not the whole scenario (and the article) is/was empowering for Knox shouldn't be a reason for deletion- we have to base it on notability. Sometimes people do things that we as editors find personally unappealing or degrading and sometimes those people gain notability for that fact. We need to be very, very careful that we aren't removing things just because we think that one day Miriam Weeks will suddenly become ashamed of the things that she did under the name of Belle Knox and because we personally find the events distasteful. This can actually be seen as a form of censorship. Well meaning censorship, but still censorship. Most of the times we do this without even thinking about whether or not what we're doing is ultimately beneficial to Wikipedia and the individual or whether or not it's censorship. While no, we shouldn't have stuff just to be salacious, neither should we be white knights in a situation like this. There has already been harm done, but not by Wikipedia and we need to look at whether the Wikipedia article would do harm in this situation, especially when you consider that the entire scenario has been widely reported on and the woman herself has taken the resulting media coverage as a platform to talk about various applicable issues. Basically, what I want to make sure is that in trying to protect her from potential harm that we aren't actually perpetuating harm ourselves by saying that because all of this happened, that obviously she'll regret all of this later (stigmatizing everything) and that she needs to be protected from herself as well as from the world at large. We also need to not kid ourselves: removing this won't really do much for her in the long run. This has already popped up in at least one academic journal (as a focus on media headlines) so this is something that is more than newspapers reporting on someone refusing to provide flowers to a gay couple's wedding or someone quitting their media job because they want to go run a pot shop. We need to avoid harm, yes, but we also need to look at whether or not this is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe your argument is another strawman recreation of what I said, but fails to address the fundamental. Picking out women that have chosen to use sex work as a means to support their education is not new.  It is not about how editors feel about sex work, it's about contributing to a culture of shaming individuals that have chosen it.  This article doesn't exist without her real name.  Her own assessment, I believe, is that doxxing has ruined her life.  WP is not a random collection of information and information about a single college woman that uses adult entertainment to fund their college career is one person among thousands.  She is not notable because she is a college student doing sex work as there are literally tens of thousands that do so.  She is in the news because they discovered her identity and affiliation.  Using that as a reason for inclusion is harmful.  She is not known for her sex work, rather she is known because of a "name and shame" mentality by the press.  WP need not be party to that type of sensationalism.  This is not Jerry Springer.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is better researched than it's previous incarnation with plenty links and sources for support. It should be speedy keep at this point. Web Warlock (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm broadly with Tokyogirl79 on this. Belle Knox is steadily accumulating reliable sources, showing that we are past the WP:BLP1E moment; this is not a single-event article but about a person who has for better or worse become well-known, even notorious, and is now developing a media career which is being reported sufficiently to prove it is notable in WP's terms in its own right. Therefore KEEP is the only available option under the GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- as stated above: "Miss Knox is well-recognized as a hero for freedom of sexuality." world famous and popular person!--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep In the six months since the article was created and deleted, she has continued to gain coverage. I'm also with Tokyogirl79 with this, and I am not convinced by the deletion arguments at this time (note: I created the article originally, but came in with a neutral state of mind in this discussion). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep She had coverage outside the porn media that is unequal by any other pornstar in the last year. She definitively have the notoriety required to a have a page.    --Guillcote (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable based on the sources. Also, the outcome of the previous AfD should have been keep as well, and the admin who closed that one did so inappropriately. Everyking (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-cited and better sourced than many Wikipedia articles.  The article handles the issue appropriately and in a non-salacious manner.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable under WP:PORNBIO #3 per Gaijin42, Dismas and Guillcote. While one could have made the argument for WP:BLP1E #1 in the first AfD, this clearly no longer applies, given the amble sources demonstrated in the Belle Knox article and those listed by Gaijin42 above. Calebrw (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Although I agree that this article was initially created too soon when the story first came out, I now realize that this is history in the making, not 15 minutes of fame for Knox. She has received ongoing coverage in mainstream media for a while now. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. In March she was known only for her outing. That got some extra coverage because of her Duke affiliation, but it was routine nonetheless. Novelty is not notability. We were right to exercise caution in the early days, especially while it remained to be seen how she would handle her newfound notoriety. Since then, she's apparently chosen to embrace it and had some success building on it. She's notable now, even if the coverage of her outpaces her actual notability. Of course, sensation will continue to swirl around her, and we'll have to use judgment about what goes in the article. But the article should stay. Lagrange613 03:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm jealous of 's rationale as it neatly sums up my reason for changing to keep.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 04:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I get jealous of every time I see them on Wikipedia. AFD rationales come and go, but a great username is forever. Lagrange613 03:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. While Miriam Weeks may well be notable, Belle Knox is likely not. 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its the name she is getting the publicity under (particularly in the tv show). Marilyn Monroe? Carlos Esteves? Nick Cage,  Ashton Kutcher (I went do High School with him! Hi Chris!) etc.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The consensus last time was to keep, but it got deleted anyway.  Ongoing coverage in mainstream media is more than enough to warrant keeping.  She's the opposite of "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual".  Sholom (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject has no real notability in words or deeds, and nobody mentioned in the article has anything notable to say. I don't know if the "outing" was real or fake - but the whole story and its issues are so predictable and unoriginal. Is little more than an article about stalking by stalkers for stalkers - and I doubt that it will ever be anything more than that. About the only thing interesting is that there are those willing to charge, and those willing to pay, $60,000 a year tuition costs for "women’s studies". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject still does not have any true notability. This is just a passing news story at best. Wikipedia is not news, and there is no reason to cover every person who gets 15 minutes of attention in the news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well beyond 15 minutes at this point. DreamGuy (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passed GNG before, and still does so now, obviously. Major kudos to Gaijin42 for digging up so many sources. The article looks very good now. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Had more than enough sources last time around and had overwhelming support to stay but was deleted improperly by an admin ignoring Wikipedia's policies for some unknown reason (likely more just gaming the system). With additional news and sources the case to keep is even that much stronger this time. (And can Wikipedia eventually do something about admins just doing whatever the hell they want for no good reason?) DreamGuy (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I felt that there was enough, ongoing of the Belle Knox story beyond the simple story of "Porn actress goes to Duke" that it had passed the notability test. That coverage is even more expansive since and it's now regularly talked about in debates about pornography in the context of feminism in reliable sources obviously isn't changing my mind.  Knox would still fail the specialized WP:PORNSBIO test, but I believe clearly passes the general notability guidelines.  The argument that this is a passing news story simply doesn't hold water - 6 months later and news stories involving Knox in major media still exist, divorced from the details of the initial story, now more than 6 months ago.  This is an easy one now.  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Like how notable does it have to be?--150.216.254.207 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the above and move to Miriam Weeks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving would be inappropriate; see WP:STAGENAME. Lagrange613 11:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am a BLP1E stickler, but this is the type of person that passes my opinion of what threshold is for "low-profile individual" (she is not) and "persistent coverage (there is). This has nothing to do with wp:pornbio gibberish, and the article should really be moved to the person's real name. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 6 October 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.