Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams


 * 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Calpernia Addams


Subject is a reality television star of questionable notability who does not wish inclusion in Wikipedia, whose personal safety and quality of life are negatively impacted by inclusion. Kindly acknowledging her wishes will not substantially diminish Wikipedia's usefulness. Calperniaaddams (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment there are reliable sources that cover this person but I don't know the process when a subject puts her own article for AfD. Travellingcari (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: That was my issue as well - normally I'd be inclined to say keep outright (it is a good article), but maybe we could create a "protected stub" or something? I actually would NOT question the notability, but apparently the subject does. Biggest concern I have is that if we delete, it sets a precedent - couldn't anyone then ask to have their article removed? Duncan1800 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment This sort of thing has come up before with regards to Matt Sanchez See: Talk:Matt Sanchez and the related ArbCom case. -MBK004 21:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the only example, we've had a quite a few at this point, some kept some deleted. We really don't have a very coherent process for addressing these in general at this point. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP some relevant info. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep for now. While I appreciate the authors concern, and per current understanding of WP:BLP, subject requested deletions of highly marginally notable people may be warranted I don't think that it should be done in this case. The subject is a willing public figure. As I have explained on earlier deletion discussions it is unreasonable for willing public figures to request that articles about them be deleted. In this case, it is even more unreasonable given that the subject has published an autobiography and has a website for self-promotion/publicity/activism at http://www.calpernia.com. The nomination also ignores the  activism that the subject has taken part in which makes it much more problematic to delete than if this were simply an entertainement indivual.  JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. JoshuaZ is spot on. In the past, we have performed courtesy BLP deletions of marginally notable persons who have not sought publicity voluntarily. Clearly, this is not the case here: Ms. Addams is sufficiently notable and is actively promoting herself. I fully understand that Ms. Addams has privacy concerns regarding her birth name, but deletion of this article is not the answer. A post has been made at the BLP Noticeboard, and I have encouraged her to participate in that discussion. — Satori Son 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obvious notability (subject of documentary and television series). If there are BLP/privacy issues, let them be addressed appropriately within the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep She is a professional activist as well as actress, which makes it difficult to see any legitimate reason to delete the article; there might however, be good reason for some editing. and re-emphasis.DGG (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I could have understood if, in the past, the subject had wanted to have the article about her deleted in order to maintain her privacy. But once the subject agreed to be the focus of a reality television show, the idea that she should be kept out of the encyclopedia to maintain her privacy should have gone by the wayside. See Miami Herald, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Kansas City Star. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I vote keep for the reasons above. (Everything in wikipedia is already public record.  All we do here is compile it in one place.)  There is also an issue as of now of this persons identity.  How do we really know they are who they claim to be?--Hfarmer (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the subject of the article does not wish to be included (and the identity may be verified), I would vote for delete.  Although we're working to be encyclopedic in documenting historical events, we can't forget that peoples' lives can and are effected by what's on the net (including Wiki entries).  We should honor her request if the nominating user's identity is definitively established.BWH76 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm just a single tiny person, and my article doesn't say anything bad about me, or anything that I disagree with. I'm not "demanding" deletion, which would be useless. But it's like discovering that your next door neighbor has erected an enormous dry-erase board with a detailed breakdown of your activities in the years you've lived next door, with an invitation for anyone in the neighborhood to add or change whatever they like. Legal? Maybe, but incredibly creepy. While I enjoy being an entertainer, and I was in the news for various events, and I'm on the web here and there, I'm calmly, plainly saying that I do not want to be in Wikipedia specifically. I know several Wikipedians, and I know that it becomes a pastime that they enjoy and to which they devote a lot of time. At times, I've seen it almost become an obsession, and if something like that is in play here, I hope that whomever can pull out of the conviction that every webpage must be filled with correctly sourced and formatted text enough to realize that there are consequences to this hobby. Surely, everyone began their time here as someone devoted to simply maintaining a useful resource. But when Wikipedia becomes a horde of judging, faceless strangers voting on what to do with me, who I can't fight or influence, it really disturbs me. I'm asking politely, not to remove some embarrassing exposé article on me, but just to leave me out of your project. Take down the creepy giant dry-erase board detailing my life. This isn't the Enquirer or TMZ.com, people who make a living from writing about others who'd prefer to be left out of their publications. When I was a child, one had to be dead or have their footprints on the moon to be in the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia is a benign and positive resource with intent to make the world a better place, then I would hope that my wishes to be left alone by it could be respected. If there is some other purpose for Wikipedia, such as to punish me for being on a reality show (Metropolitan90?) by denying my essentially insignificant-to-Wikipedia request, or to generally punish wrongdoers by nailing a list of their sins to the town hall door (as seems to be an argument for keeping the OJ Simpson type articles, which I won't defend or join since it's on an entirely different level), Wikipedia becomes a much more sinister seeming entity to me. I ask again, please, just leave me alone and out of it. Must I be bullied by people to the end of my days via every newly available medium? Write me at calpernia@calpernia.com if anyone doubts that I am "me". --calperniaaddams (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm totally confused by this attitude. Matt Sanchez I can understand - he was using his own page as advertising.  Jay Brannan has problems with being called "openly" gay, (something about being a pawn of the gay agenda), and wants his page taken down apparently in retaliation.  But here's someone a community has deemed "notable" by somewhat strict criteria, we have fairly stringent requirements about what can go in the article, and she wants it removed?
 * BTW, Calpernia, WP:UNDUE will tell you about why this isn't a dry-erase where every detail can be posted. I suspect there are fan-sites that are much more intrusive - we try to stick to information that has been published in reliable sources, things that have already appeared in the New York Times, for instance, not things that someone saw you do in the check-out line in Kroger.
 * Keep, for the record. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just thought of a couple more angles to look at this from. 1.) Not only is all of the information in Wikipedia public record but it is hyperlinked to the wikipedia.  The way most of us find those links...Google and Yahoo.  The sum total of what's here on our "creepy whiteboard"  (I am trying not to feel slighted by that by the way) could be found in a list of search results.  The other angle is that if what she want's to keep secret is that she's trans.  It's a little late for that. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry to have to vote that, but she is a notable person and the article in not attacking her. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP. --64.180.254.185 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - How does the page violate BLP? -MBK004 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per JoshZ, et al.  Wikipedia isn't a place for public attacks or defamation, but Calpernia certainly is a notable figure, both in activism & television.  I am totally a fan, by the way.  I'm sorry it doesn't comply with your personal wishes, but there are better motives to keep Wikipedia going than money-- hopefully, that makes us better than TMZ & suck ilk.  Best.  --mordicai. (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The timing of Calpernia’s AFD request, and her basis for it, are curiously ironic, since her request coincidences with the debut of a television show on the LOGO network that features her. Ms. Addams’ request implies she may be unaware that making such a request only creates yet more permanent, public, information by and about her, since the AFD process will live on permanently with the article about her, as do the historical versions of the article about her.


 * IMO, and with all due respect to Calpernia Addams, the article about her should be kept because Ms. Addams is notable. Writing and publishing an autobiography, appearing in DVD releases from Deep Stealth Productions, acting as production consultant in the film “Soldier’s Girl”, her appearance in “Transamerica”, at GLAAD media awards, her PR oriented personal web site, her acting and stage performances, and so on, are all the actions of a public person. A person who desired privacy would have made radically different choices after her experiences in 1999.


 * However, IMO, the article about Ms. Addams should be edited to remove such phrases as: “birth name unknown” at the beginning of the article; “born and raised a boy”, and any other similar phrases that she and other trans-women likely believe are dismissive of their female status and identity. I also think that the article about her should be reorganized, with separate sections that describe the phases of her life more clearly.


 * Since there are many articles about trans-people in Wikipedia, maybe it is time to establish a set of editorial standards for writing about trans-people. IMO, those editorial standards should include the omission of “birth names”, since inclusion of them is usually done to embarrass and diminish their current status. However, IMO, for example, it is appropriate to note in such articles that someone has received surgery, and even from whom. Information like that clarifies the physiological and legal status of the subject. Information about the surgeons, the whom, helps to clarify that people receive such surgery from reputable and highly qualify medical professionals, not in the “back alleys” often portrayed in media such as films.
 * 75.172.50.159 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm going to take advantage of the fact that I'm not logged in right now to write on somewhat of a tangent. I learned about Calpernia Addams from the LOGO site advertising her new show, and it made me think of how positive an impact she could have on others. I definitely understand the desire to be humble, but the world needs you! ~ anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.253.33 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete You do not have the right to damage another persons life, reputation, public image or anything else under any circumstance. That is the role of the courts and not the mob - no matter how well intentioned. Claiming some greater good is interesting, but the argument that there is a greater good in allowing people to have control over their public image is also significant, particularly in this day and age.The Last Heretic (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: In a sense, you're right, TLH. And that's exactly what WP:BLP is about. But there's nothing in Addams' article that in any way damage's her life, reputation, public image, or anything else.  Even if there were, the way to deal with those is through judicious editing and exemplary sources, not by deleting the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Metropolitan90, there is nothing wrong with the article and it surely meets our WP:BIO requirements and is well in line with our living person biography policy as well. RFerreira (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2008 (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.