Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyontyli Goffney


 * 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. All points considered, as shown by the delete !votes, his only notability seemingly comes from his arrest. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Keyontyli Goffney

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

only proper notability is for being arrested; fails WP:NOT. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – Have to agree with the nominator on this one. This is a text book example of one event (No pun intended), as shown here, .  The only coverage of the twins are the burglaries they were charged with.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, WP:BIO1E does not exclude coverage of individuals whose notability rests on a single event; the guidelines, rather, primarily concern the question of whether both the event and the indvidual should be covered: "it may be unclear," the guidelines state, "whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Secondly, the subject of the entry satisfies the criteria for the notability of a criminal act. See Notability (criminal acts): "intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act." Finally, Keyontyli Goffney has made "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" (WP:PORNBIO), namely, incest pornography.GBataille (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Intense means intense; almost all crimes get a few news articles. When we say "intense" we're talking Moors Murders here. Have reliable, third party sources described his contributions to incest pornography as "unique"? Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Almost all crimes get a few news articles": would a break-in into a beauty shop in which $2,000 were stolen receive the well-documnted national coverage that the Goffneys received? Of course not, because normally it is not identical twins working in gay porn that commit such offenses. That is where the notability of the subject of the article resides, together with the fact that Keyontyli Goffney does have an (again, well-documented) career as a fashion model. Regarding the question of what intense means: it seems to me that repeated coverage in national news channels satisfies this criterion.GBataille (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A trivial routine burglary arrest ( & no sourced indication that the career itself is notable--main work "distributed only online"). One of the nom's good nominations.     DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Distributed only online isn't correct. Magazines like Clik and Next aren't online publications. If the arrest was trivial and routine, then why the national coverage? Trivial and routine crimes don't get that.91.7.116.64 (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.If the arrest was trivial and routine, then why the national coverage? Trivial and routine crimes don't get that. Porn career is also notable because of identical twin.  Article should reference his brother or updated to be about both of them.  --Bmoshier (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being arrested is not an indication of notability. Other than that, there's no indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PERP. Fails under WP:ENT, WP:PORNBIO and his arrest is just "news of the weird" that falls under WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2010 (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.