Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Sparxxx


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Sparxxx

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Only actual claim of notability is for her "world record", but even the article subject now acknowledges that was a hoax. (http://www.letagparfait.com/en/2013/06/19/lisa-sparks-the-tube-sites-have-now-killed-porn/) Fails the GNG for lack of independent reliable sourcing; what's out there is generally kayfabe or promotional fiction. Unlike other porn performers involved in similar hoaxes (e.g., Jasmin St. Claire), this article subject appears to have made no non-trivial impact outside her own promotional output. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - NOTE: The article under consideration here has been pretty heavily edited in recent days. The subject here has "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", namely gang bang pornography (which unfortunately was almost recently gutted by the initiator of this AfD here), and/or basically passes GNG by being featured multiple times in mainstream media, namely the books Plays Well in Groups: A Journey Through the World of Group Sex & Chuck Palahniuk, Parodist: Postmodern Irony in Six Transgressive Novels and the European magazine CultureKiosque (as currently cited in the article). Guy1890 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perpetrating a hoax/fraud is not a "unique contribution" of any value, even if a handful of "mainstream" sources were at some point taken in by the hoax. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Except it's not a "hoax" AND she's starred in numerous mainstream films, which makes her notable.Holanthony (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the subject acknowledges that the "record" is a sham, whether we term it a hoax, a fraud, a canard, a fake, or whatever else, it doesn't matter. The claim on which her supposed notability rests just isn't so. And small parts in nonnotable films don't amount to "starring in numerous mainstream films", either. It's hard to see how a competent editor could advance such arguments in good faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now you're assuming facts not in evidence. She has NOT denied anything in the article (a refusal to confirm is NOT tantamount to denial). Moreover, she still claims a record of 919 different insertions in public. Whether they be from 919 different men or fewer is inconsequential, it is is a notable record that she still undeniably was the first person to achieve. Furthermore, another valid question is how much credibility one should put into a source that is written by a guy who styles himself "Heterogeneous onanist in the service of those who see beyond the weakness of the flesh."? Holanthony (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what the subject of this Wikipedia article said when asked in an interview (which has already been added to this article here) about the event in question: "You still hold the world record for the biggest gang bang ever, it was back in 2004. I’ve seen this record being questioned on some websites by people arguing that you did not actually fucked with 900+ different guys. What would you answer them? I have never said that it was 919 different guys I said it was 919 different insertions. That is what the record is for"
 * This was not a "hoax/fraud", "sham", "canard", or "a fake"...it happened, is described accurately in the article under consideration here, and has been noted by several mainstream sources. The fact that one doesn't like the subject and/or has gutted the Wikipedia article on the subject of the event without any meaningful discussion is irrelevant here at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, there are listed sources that are more recent than the article by the "Heterogeneous onanist" that still list it as a "record". Thus, we have sources that are not only reliable, but also contemporary and up-to-date. Given these circumstances, I can only reiterate my argument to keep the article. Holanthony (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I agree with Guy1890. The article is now edited in such a way that it contains RS and conforms to the notability criteria.Holanthony (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the subject does not demonstrate sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG and build an NPOV article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable pornographic performer. the article lacks good quality sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Our core content policy Verifiability requires that we "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The sources in the article fail that standard, and I have not been able to find better sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ' How do you say that? The article contains numerous sources from well-reputable publishers. Holanthony (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Respected by whom? In my judgment, the sources are crappy. The Chuck Palahniuk source,  for example, discusses a different porn actor and mentions Sparks only in passing.  It is not significant coverage and is therefore worthless for establishing notability.  Feel free to take any of the other sources to the Reliable sources noticeboard, where I predict that consensus will be that the sources are not reliable. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Respected" in that McFarland & Co. is a well-renowned publishing house with a good track record. But if that isn't enough, you also have the Frank source, also from a reputable publishing house, and the interview with Roger T. Pipe (who is a well-known authority in the industry). There are of course plenty more. So riddle me this, why are you willing to accept an article written by someone styling themselves as a "Heterogeneous onanist in the service of those who see beyond the weakness of the flesh" as a more "reliable source" rather than any other one of the aforementioned, reputable sources? I am really at a loss! Holanthony (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources are poor (press releases, a trivial mention in a book about literary criticism) to unreliable (the IMDB, which is user-generated).  I was still leaning toward keeping it because of the world record, but HW raises credible concerns about that.  If better sources appear, we can recreate the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ok, I have now added several new RS. Perhaps you feel inclined to change your vote now? Besides, the point HW raised has been debunked for the following reasons 1) The source he uses is questionable (I mean, is a source from someone who presents himself to be a "Heterogeneous onanist in the service of those who see beyond the weakness of the flesh" more reliable than ALL of the other RS from reputable publishers?) 2) Sparxx does not deny anything. HW is drawing a conclusion, which in itself is WP:OR and forbidden by Wikirules and should be discounted on that account alone. 3) Sparxxx does admit to 919 different insertions, which is in itself a record whther it be by 919 different men or fewer, and thus notable in itself. Holanthony (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The two book citations you added appear to be passing mentions. The Daily Star cite comes from one of Britain's most disreputable tabloids. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Gene93k. The Basket Sessions source only says she likes the Lakers, and the books look like a series of trivial mentions.  For example, Usefully Useless contains a grand total of one sentence about her.  This, to my mind, fails WP:SIGCOV, which uses a similar example to explain why Bill Clinton's high school band is not notable.  The sheer number of sources indicates some degree of fame, but Wikipedia's idiosyncratic guidelines require in-depth coverage, not fame. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The example of Bill Clinton's band makes a point that it relies on ONE source mentioning it in passing, but here we are talking about several sources reporting on the same matter, which means it is widely reported (and there were fare than just two books by the way). You're wrong about the Basket Sessions source, as it CLEARLY mentioned the 919 insertions (this is not really not difficult to miss!). Moreover, the sources that have reported on this feat have often done so in dedicated sections/paragraphs, which also means it is more than than just a passing reference to something else. Not sure what more you are asking for the sources on the matter to report? They state that she has performed the deed and that it was a unique feat for its time and considered a record. Do you want them to write elaborate details of how she laid down on the mattress, how she unbuttoned her jeans, how she pulled her panties off, how tender she was afterwards, how many times she stopped for bathroom breaks etc.? It doesn't seem quite relevant. The passage is fully and adequately sourced for what it states as per WP:RS, because I haven't heard anyone dispute the validity of any of these source (with the possible exception of Daily Star, but that still passes RS as, whether you personally love it or hate it, it is an established medium). Holanthony (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you've disputed the accuracy of the Basket Sessions source here yourself. If you had actually read that source carefully, you would have seen that it simply repeats (with credit) statements from letagparfait.com. letagparfait.com is, of course, the source I cite in my nomination, which you describe below as a dodgy article written by a dodgy anonymous author using a dodgy pen name on an even dodgier website. Apparently it's unreliable when I cite statements attributed to, but not when you do? That shows how far removed from rationality your sourcing arguments are. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop embarrassing yourself. letagparfait is still a dubious source, but Basket sessions is bona fide. The fact that they make reference to to a questionable source does not discount its credibility, or maybe you believe the whole deal about pizzagate was for real too? Holanthony (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The notion that a source is reliable just because it is an "established medium" is bizarre and without merit. Passing mentions in mediocre sources do not create notability, and "world's records" cited so dubiously are unworthy of inclusion into this encyclopedia. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you fail to answer the question, why do you consider a "passing mention" in a dodgy article written by a dodgy anonymous author using a dodgy pen name on an even dodgier website to be a more reliable source than ANY of the other sources listed which have credited authors, editorial control and are published by reputable companies? Furthermore, I think we have well-established by now that Sparxxx has been addressed in these sources in more than a mere "passing reference". A "Passing reference" suggests it is mentioned as a sub-clause in a sentence that refers to something else. It is no in either of the sources cited, as they reference her in separate, dedicated sections and/or paragraphs. Holanthony (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said that I considered that source reliable, and I have maintained that none of the sources are sufficient to establish notability.  Accordingly,  you are debating a straw man.  Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  21:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, if you don't consider that source reliable, then you can't dispute the claim of a world record, which is what the original poster did (and which serves as the raison d'etre for this article even being up on afd in the first place). Second of all, why then isn't a world record in the greatest number of insertions/partners in one day a notable feat? It has been widely reported for many years in different sources in more than mere "passing references". Holanthony (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To repeat, since you seem not to have understood the first time I said it,  I do not consider any of the sources in this article reliable enough or sufficient for establishing notability. With regards to any claim of a "world's record" in any area of human endeavor,  we need an impeccably reliable source with a reputation for authenticating such records, for example  Guinness World Records. What we have here are credulous passing mentions of a publicity stunt. To repeat,  the sources in support of this claim are crap.  If you disagree, please go to the Reliable sources noticeboard for a consensus judgement. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  04:55, 11 December 2016 (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.