Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity sex tape


 * 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   no consensus. A more detailed explanation follows.

Though AfD's are not a "vote," the numbers on the various sides of the debate are worth noting. I make out 19 keep !votes (a few of which are weak) and 13 folks in the delete camp (with a couple of those open to simply limiting the nature of the included content)&mdash;in other words, a fairly even split with a preference for keeping (some editors did not really provide a valid rationale for their view, but most did).

Predictably, the arguments in this AfD are much like those in other recent AfD's which involve BLP issues. Notability is not at issue here, and basically all keep voters are arguing that, because the topic is a notable one which we can describe with reliable sources, it should be kept. A number of the keep commenters make reference to the BLP concerns but feel the article is well-sourced enough to evade that problem. Most of the delete voters are not concerned with the issue of notability or verifiability, rather they are basing their arguments on our policy with respect to biographies of living persons (some with particular reference to the phrase "do no harm").

The debate here is a small part of a much larger debate (here, for example). That larger debate does not have a consensus as yet, and unsurprisingly neither does this one. There is clearly a sense among a large percentage of the community that these kind of articles are deeply problematic for BLP reasons and we need a different approach, however the specifics of that new approach have unfortunately not been worked out as yet. Until such time as a new way to deal with BLP articles like this one is implemented, and given the strong keep sentiment below rooted in valid policy concerns, in my view there is no choice but to close this as no consensus.

I would point out that, if our BLP policies are revised at some point, it would be more than appropriate to revisit this article at a future AfD if editors were so inclined.

While there is no consensus for deletion, the debate below was constructive and did produce some good suggestions and apparent points of agreement. It might be useful for folks who participated in the AfD to discuss some of the following issues since there will be some energy to do that (controversial AfD's often lead to article improvement), and working on this along the lines suggested below might alleviate at least some of the concerns of those in favor of deletion:


 * 1) First of all, it's obvious that few disagree that this article is problematic in its current state and needs to be reworked in some fashion.
 * 2) There seem to be two main alternative paths: either include prose and sources which describe the general phenomenon of celebrity sex tapes (thus moving it away from a list article), or turn this into a full-on list by moving it to List of celebrity sex tapes. Both options seem worthy of consideration and most seem to agree they would be improvements on the current situation.
 * 3) There seems to be some consensus that a "rumored" section is inappropriate and should stay out.

Right now is as good (or even better) of a time to work on this article as any, and a few days of discussion and changes might turn this into something far less problematic. And to re-iterate, changes in our approach to BLP-related articles could easily alter the outcome in future AfD's for this article, so partisans of Celebrity sex tape should be motivated to make it far more up to par than it is now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity sex tape

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a massive coatrack which doesn't explain what a sex tape is but rather a list of celebrities that have been in one. Per (repeated in WP:BLP, so don't bother pulling out Argumentum ad Jimboium), this article is the antithesis of the entire BLP policy - it's tabloiding of the highest degree, given how much some of these celebrities have litigated to get the tapes destroyed - and efforts to reduce it to an acceptable form have been ignored. I really want it to be an article, but my hand has been forced. Sceptre (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Why don't you explain what a celebrity sex tape is and remove uncited claims? No one is trying to air the tapes, link to them, or divulge titillating tabloid details, just document that the such tapes exist.  joshschr  ( Talk  |  contribs ) 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. By "efforts to reduce it to an acceptable form", what Sceptre means is he blanked the page four times  in a period of thirty minutes without writing a single word on the article's talkpage, and with no edit summary beyond "BLP concerns".  He was reverted by three separate editors (myself included), and probably should have been blocked for 3RR, if someone had been quicker on the draw with a 3RR warning template.  He also submitted it for page protection to keep people from undoing his blanking, protection which was declined by an admin.  Anyway, the page is well sourced beyond BLP-worry terrain.  Ford MF (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks well sourced to me so BLP shouldn't be an issue, though I agree that maybe some explanation on the nature of celebrity sex tapes would be a welcome addition.  The fact that this went from a page blank to a nomination for deletion is almost enough for me to say speedy keep it, in fact.  Strong keep it it'll have to be.  --mordicai. (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well cited, often highly publicized events. If there are particular concerns with a source, use the Talk page. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Begrudging keep.
 * At first, I was going to vote for deletion. Isn't this article akin to, say, an article like "Harvard Alumni Status"? There certainly is such a thing as the "Harvard mystique," just as there really is such a thing as celebrity sex tapes. Both are, I suppose, fairly well-known phenomena and always dutifully reported by the media. Like the celebrity sex tape article, my hypothetical "Harvard Alumni Status" article could only be a generic definition of the term, followed by a list of personalities with the relevant characteristic. Finally, I was going to ask: Is there any doubt that an article about "Harvard Alumni Status" should garner unequivocal support for deletion?
 * I regret to inform you that there are in fact at least two articles on Harvard alumni status: List of Harvard University people and Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard University. In a perfect world, all of these articles, which exist more for the opportunity they give to users to flatter themselves as Wikipedia "contributors" than any actual encyclopedic demand, would be deleted. Nevertheless, it is by this time beyond doubt that these trivial, trivia-qua-list articles are here to stay. Reluctantly, I vote to keep. Pop Secret (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * those articles, and the similar ones for every university, list the people in that group who are the subject of WP articles or clearly notable enough to be. If an article for anyone on such a page is deleted, so normally is the listing. This is not comparable. DGG (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's bold blue for each bullet point of the celebrity sex tape list. So they are quite comparable. My worry is the proliferation of pages that serve as little more than indexes of the already eminently searchable Wikipedia, and what principled line we can draw for characteristics that should generate an index page and those characteristics that should not. You seem to think that going to Harvard is an example of the former and starring in a celebrated sex tape is an example of the latter. But why? Pop Secret (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. (edit conflict) You've got to be kidding me. Verifiability doesn't mean we check common-f******-sense at the door, nor is it an excuse for ignoring other principles of Wikipedia. We must consider what Wikipedia is not. We must consider that we're discussing living people. We must consider whether the available sources and the framing of the topic allow us to make a balanced and complete article. That's just a few examples of what is spelled out in policy. We should also use the sense given to us by nature. The growing abuse of verifiability as the end-all be-all of article inclusion and content considerations needs to stop. Vassyana (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you back this up with some actual arguments, this just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. How, specifically, does this violate WP:NOT? Given how well-sourced it is, how is it a violation of WP:BLP? Since it's just a straight listing of confirmed facts, how does it violate WP:NPOV? And, most importantly, how does this violate WP:COMMONSENSE? Just pointing to a bunch of policies and harrumphing isn't an argument. See also Carptrash's law.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe my statement, including its rebuttal purpose, was fairly clear and explicit. A number of keep arguments essentially boil down to "it's verifiable". As for BLP and NOT, Wikipedia is not intended for tabloid coverage. As for NPOV, the article most certainly fails. A NPOV article would discuss the phenomena, representing viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources; it would not be a coatrack listing of sex tapes. Please note, I am not disputing that the putative topic is notable. However, the article doesn't even make a feeble attempt to actually discuss the topic, instead just presenting a tabloid coatrack listing that runs counter to several basic principles. Vassyana (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, instead of attempting to delete the article, try inserting some prose. The article obviously supplies useful information on a widespread, verifiable phenomenon that does not necessarily conflict with WP:BLP in most cases. I've read articles noting how celebrity sex tapes have enhanced the notability of some subjects (e.g., Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson). That third-party coverage and analysis should probably be incorporated and cited within the article, too. Deleting the article completely would be a disservice to the encyclopedia regardless of personal tastes, I think. J Readings (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the sex tape has had an impact on the individual involved career-wise (positive or negative), then it should be in the article of the subject and this separate list is not required. If it had no impact on the individual involved, then it is not notable and does not belong on Wikipedia. Rumours do not belong in Wikipedia—period. In the past I have removed several of the entries here because their "sources" don't actually say what they are claimed to say, in particular the Barbra Streisand one, sourced to a Playboy article that, when printed out, didn't mention the hypothetical sex tape at all; however, it looks like everything I took out has been put back in, usually with the same references. Risker (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to fix what you're concerned about, but it doesn't actually seem to be the case. The Streisand entry, clearly labeled as false and listed in the section debunking persistent but untrue rumors of appearances in sex tapes, is sourced to three places, including The Village Voice, and the link for the Playboy interview indicates the following: "Take that porno film I'm supposed to be in. When I first heard the rumor, I thought it was a put-on. But these people you never can seem to find were selling a film and claiming it was me."Perhaps you didn't scroll down far enough.  Anyway, which part of this, exactly, violates WP:BLP or is unfairly defamatory to Streisand?  You've gone a good job editing the article in the past, keeping out entries that were, in fact, unsourced and libelous, so I'm a little sad that you're arguing for deletion.  Ford MF (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ford MF, I used to try to keep this article cleaned up and finally took it off my watchlist when every time I cleaned it up the junk just wound up back in. There are six, possibly seven, entries on this article that are noteworthy: Hilton, Harding, Lowe, Crane, Chua Soi Lek, and Anderson/Lee, with Kardashian being a possible; there are mentions in their primary articles in each case, which is where they belong. News flash—people have sex, sometimes even with their spouses and significant others. The rest of these are not noteworthy. The rumours are inappropriate: Marilyn Monroe maybe had a sex tape that maybe someone bought, but maybe it isn't her, and maybe the sale never happened? Someone said there was a Lindsay Lohan sex tape but it turned out to be someone else? Good grief. That such entries are considered acceptable by many who are editing this article sadly confirms to me that the article cannot be properly maintained, and thus should not be here. I feel like a tourist and Protonk may have a point in making it a list of celebrities whose sex tapes are notable enough to be discussed in their main articles, but otherwise it's essentially a list of trivia. Risker (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:May I suggest that we turn this article into a mere list of celebrities who have been in sex tapes. This is completely verifiable and seems to be somewhat relevant (unfortunately...thanks, American culture).  It seems like it could be worth keeping if converted into a list, which is basically all that it is now. I feel like a tourist (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP. Do No Harm.  And per Vassyana above.  the best outcome of this article could be a list of celebrities whose articles already contain information about their being involved in a sex tape. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep to preserve BLP information, but rename to List of celebrities in sex tapes. As long as it can be sourced, BLP isn't an issue.  Celarnor Talk to me  00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't an issue on the individual biographies. I'm not at all opposed to ensuring that each piece of sourced information find its way into the appropriate biography, then making a category for celebrities with sex tapes.  But in this case we have a POV problem.  In the individual articles, the sex tape information can be threaded so as not to be used for attack or promotion.  Here on the list, no such context exists.  That is why I'm inclined to delete.  Also, preserving information isn't a terribly persuasive argument.  If the information is notable, then by definition this isn't the only place for it. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hell, why don't we just delete all the BLP articles period and let people read newspapers like they did in the good old days? Screw it, let them get on a bus and go to a library if those bastards want easy, centralized access to information.  Ford MF (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The literary reference is apt for consideration. However, you will not find information like this in "newspapers" or "a library". Rather, this is the kind of material one receives from scandal sheets in the impulse-buyer racks of supermarkets. Last time I checked, that's exactly the kind of content we don't want. Vassyana (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this count as a "newspaper"?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, for that matter, Time Magazine, The Village Voice, BBC, Der Spiegel? Ford MF (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure! Because that's totally what I meant.  If you're going to be sarcastic you should at least strive to be funny.  Deleting a list of celebrity sex tapes because they may place undue weight on the existence or non-existence of the tape isn't destroying centralized information for the heck of it.  Protonk (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tone it down a notch. I wasn't being sarcastic and I didn't say that is what you meant. I said the comparison was appropriate to consider and then I gave my consideration of it. Vassyana (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you. I just posted the comment where I did so I wouldn't disturb the threading.  That is why I also didn't indent it more than yours, so you wouldn't think I was replying to you.  I guess I thought that context would have informed the reader that I was referring to Ford MF's post.  Protonk (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, highly notable topic. Everyking (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is "highly notable" about this topic? Risker (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per Vassyana's well constructed reasoning. I don't see "celebrity sex tapes" being all that notable on a wider realm; it may be more fitting to allocate a briefing if it's notable when its attributed on the celebrity's page itself, but even then it is a stretch. This type of content severely degrades Wikipedia further into a tabloid or another E! channel. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like what you're trying to say is that it isn't respectable to have an article on such a subject. Everyking (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that way to me. Seems like he made an argument as to why he feels that the subject of celebrity sex tapes is not notable independent from the celebrity. Protonk (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Sounded more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.  Ford MF (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, noted phenomenon worthy of an article. Might want to moved it to List of celebrity sex tapes, though, or at least split it to there. Vassanya's argument, by the way, is one of the least convincing I've ever read (c.f. User:Raul654/Raul's laws) (expanded on above).&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivia list article in disguise and therefore a violation of WP:TRIVIA. WillOakland (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've mulled over the deletion arguments, and I do understand the concerns.  However, in the end I find myself agreeing with Chowbok that this is pretty clearly a noted modern phenomenon that meets the article inclusion parameters.  That being said, the article we have is not very good.  There needs to be more discussion of the phenomenon and less listing of individual tapes.  However, the wiki process often takes time, and I think this AfD will be part of that process.-- Kubigula (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep It the, um examples, are keep to independently notable people, BLP is satisfied. However, the article has to refocus from the examples to discuss more the phenomenon in general.-- danntm T C 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the list has always been pruned to include only those notable enough to have Wikipedia pages. Are you looking for some kind of supernotability that would differentiate sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia, but insufficient notability to be mentioned on this list?  Ford MF (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Worthwhile information. jengod (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial list. List of people connected only by a single, often minor aspect of their lives. Viridae Talk 12:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, entries should of course be worth noting, and entries relating to living people should be careful to avoid being a coatrack - there are entries which satisfy those criteria, so deletion is inappropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Most modern celebrities can afford video cameras. Given this fact, there are far more "celebrity sex videos" made than Wikipedia is ever going to find out about.  The list is hopelessly incomplete and thus unencyclopedic.
 * Also, this is a trivia list. If a particular video is "significant enough" to be included in Wikipedia, it can be covered in the article about the celebrity, which is where someone interested in that celebrity would normally look. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the instances where it is documented and relevant, not just incidental gossip. this is not about every sex tape in existence, but about those which have caused significant public discussion relevant to the career. The "rumored" section is probably not a good idea. DGG (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the "famous celebrity sex tapes" because they are well-documented, verifiable instances of notability. Expand on the explanation of what a "celebrity sex tape" is, citing verifiable sources. It might be a good idea to lose the bullet points, and just go with readable prose. I also agree with DGG that the "rumored" list might conflict with WP:BLP. It's probably not a good idea to have that section. Everything else is within policy. J Readings (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete rumors section or delete entirely. Frankly I do find the article distasteful but I also recognize that such articles are a part of Wikipedia if properly done. The rumors section ought be removed. Although sourced it associates living people with generally undesirable conduct and perpetuates the rumor itself. Since we are to do no harm how can we justify keeping the rumors alive? At the point the rumors began to circulate one could argue that it was notable. But now, long afterwards, it cannot be considered worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. Thanks for reading. -JodyBtalk 12:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a notable article. The article can be rename to List of celebrity sex tapes or something similar. It is an interesting article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a chainsaw to it or delete I have started by removing the "rumors" section. We are not a gossip rag, we should not be regurgitating rumors, but presenting verifiable facts about living people. This is not the Enquirer or the local gossip mill, it is an encyclopedia. undefinedUntil  17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no policy that says we can't report rumors. Everything you deleted was referenced and notable. Just because it offends your sensibilities is not a reason to delete it.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I explained on the article talk page, such a section(especially one containing information about living people) is contrary to our policies on verifiability and BLP, not to mention WP:NOT. A referenced and notable rumor is still just a rumor. My sensibilities are just fine, I enjoy such videos myself, my concern is one of quality. undefinedUntil  17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been explained and clarified in terms of policy. Rumor-mongering is clearly contrary to the principles of this place. "It's referenced" is not an excuse to ignore the rest of the principles and rules. If my clarification was insufficient, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * delete, or is kept, remove all cruft. → Aza Toth 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since sofixit is not an option (article is hard-protected during a deletion debate? why?) I must make a motion to remove this page per do no harm.  This article IS a massive coatrack and spends 90% of the time documenting people who have been the subject of a sex tape rather than explaining what one actually is.  Wikipedia is not a tabloid, kids.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All the entries on this page meet WP:HARM nos. 1 and 2, and 3 isn't really relevant here.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if it's sourced, delete if not. It is notable, not that I like this crap. Easy. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but article should be much more of a history of the phenomenon and how it has been covered in the press, much less a list of particular tapes. - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Needless to say, I think this article looks more like a tabloid magazine in the current state. Most of the stuffs should be removed. Like the above editors said, the fact that the article is referenced doesn't mean we can ignore other policies. But since the topic itself is notable, I do not support deletion. Instead editors should completely rewrite the entire article. All rumors or non notable info about any sex tapes should be removed. And then add more info about the definition, history, and the impact of these tapes. Only notable and well sourced examples should be used.— Chris!  c t 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is a coatrack, and as this is a constantly moving target, it is better served by a category. Frank  |  talk  18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please no. If deleted please let's not create Category:Celibrities having a sex tape or something like that. A list for this is much better than a category. (I still haven't made up my mind if this list should be kept or not). Garion96 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 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.