Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Harrington


 * 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. There are strongly divergent opinions about this, but given that this is a WP:BLP that appears to consist entirely of material that could be perceived as negative, I have given more weight to those concerns. RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Melissa Harrington

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Frankly a massive BLP vio through undue coverage. Literally all the reliable coverage is minor league legal stuff. She isn’t notable enough to have any meaningful coverage and if all we can cover is this, then its impossible to have a balanced bio that covers the subject fairly. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and my own research supports the apparent impossibility of writing a BLP-compliant article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes the GNG in that she has received significant coverage in multiple RS for different events. In addition to the ones in the article. Arguing that the coverage is not meaningful is just a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. She courts controversy, and if that is the majority of the coverage, so be it because it is WP:DUE under our BLP policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources, including ones cited above, do not appear to support an article based on her 'courting controversy', e.g. "Melissa Midwest has now "demanded that she be withdrawn as a plaintiff" because she never agreed to be part of the lawsuit, according to the document." (NY Daily News) (as compared to the Omaha.com article linked above that relies on and links to the WP:NYPOST); "It appears that nobody informed Ms. Harrington that she was the lead plaintiff." (JDSupra linked above), and there is a 2008 article linked above that is mostly based on an interview, reports of allegations, and a 2004 fine, 2007 conviction, and a 2007 lawsuit, that by 2008, she dismissed. The secondary commentary seems mostly limited to references such as 'hottie' (NY Daily News) and 'vixen' (The Register). Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, so cobbling together brief bursts of superficial coverage of each scandal does not appear WP:DUE per WP:MINORASPECT, For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Beccaynr (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you are citing MINORASPECT when these are not isolated events or the NY Daily News (a non RS) when I didn't. Bait and switch argument? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d argue you are making my point. There is literally nothing in RSs about this person that isn’t sensational reporting about her legal issues. This is no basis for a BLP and unless we can portray a balanced and fair portrayal of this person who is, at the end of the day, marginally notable, then we should not have one on the overriding arguement of NOHARM. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSP, Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines, and NYDN reports in 2014, tabloid-style, on a lawsuit JDSupra reports "was dismissed in its entirety." So from my view, this is a sensationalized and isolated legal issue, similar to the other sensationalized and isolated legal issues. Her notability is primarily supported by brief bursts of tabloid-style coverage, but in a BLP, WP:NOTSCANDAL requires us to meet an especially high standard. I mentioned WP:MINORASPECT because it is the WP:NPOV section below WP:DUE, and I think it highlights the problem raised by the nom and in WP:BLPBALANCE, i.e. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. It is not fair to the subject, per policy, to be sensationalist, and we don't appear to have sources to otherwise support a balanced and fair article about her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The arrests and lawsuits are a pattern of legal issues, not isolated. She courted controversy. Just because she stopped years later in refusing to join a lawsuit with her ex-husband does not mean she courted controversy as a WP:PUBLICFIGURE for many years (2004-2013). It's completely fair if her biography reflects that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not if that is literally all we can source. Do we really have to bluelink WP:NOTASCARLETLETTER? Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Should it go to Tericka Dye or Morganna? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither is really our best work but I feel really sad for Tericka Dye. Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From my view, if Harrington was a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, only noteworthy, relevant, and well documented allegations or incidents are suitable to include, and If [we] cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. The article has two reprinted links to a brief 2003 AP story, one filed in CNN's "offbeat news" section, and another published by USAToday, about allegations related to a ticket for being naked in public, and inclusion of the various allegations and incidents do not otherwise appear supported per this policy.
 * To the extent she 'courted controversy', the available sources indicate she was unsuccessful in becoming "noteworthy, relevant or well-documented", and per policy, Wikipedia is not intended to simply be an extension of marketing efforts. In addition, the BLP policy against sensationalism appears to apply without a caveat related to the role the subject may have had in contributing to sensationalized coverage.
 * However, she also does not appear to be a public figure, based on the limited secondary commentary or context in sources that also otherwise fail to support WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ENT notability. Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, because she is relatively unknown, we should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. The low-quality secondary sources and the recommended restraint therefore further supports deletion of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * She's WP:PUBLICFIGURE based on the linked WP:LOWPROFILE guidelines. Being a porn star and making national radio appearances to promote herself is nowhere near low-profile. Her incidents have also lead to a conviction which satisfy WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There is considerable disagreement over whether the sources presented here constitute substantive biographical coverage; more detailed discussion of these sources would be helpful in determining consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Tabloid blotter about a ticket and a voluntary dismissed lawsuit; BLPs deserve better than this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seems to have some general notability as a porn star... but also as an entrepreneur. On top of that, she has also appeared in various news titles for various reasons, over a period of time. Meets WP:GNG and seems to pass WP:PUBLICFIGURE . As mentioned, apart from the articles discussing her various legal issues, this article features her, discussing her as an entrepreneur/businesswoman. I suspect she may qualify on WP:BLPCRIME. On the whole, just enough here to push her over the line. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete; this seems to fall short of encyclopedic notability. BD2412  T 00:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Morbidthoughts and Deathlibrarian. The coverage could've been better in detailing her life and career, but you aren't going to get very detailed biographical profiles on porn stars very often outside of the porn press. --GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agreed!  Morbidthoughts and Deathlibrarian have won me over; very strong arguments.  —  Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Non-notable for an on-air rape. Frankly disgusting. Her career isn't notable based on what I've seen here either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your comment, but your remarks seem to indicate that you are deleting her because you dissaprove of one particular thing she did. That's not what we are voting on here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * She got fingered basically, the rest of her career isn't notable. Still leaning towards delete. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I get your sentiment, and can see why this article might be frustrating to some that it exists, but that's not what happened according to the source. She was not the alleged victim. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, there are not a multitude of reliable published sources available, as required by this policy, and this discussion has therefore been unable to establish noteworthy, relevant, and well documented incidents as required by this policy. To clarify my comment above, I was trying to explain how she does not appear to be notable per our policies and guidelines, even if she is considered a public figure, and also how she should not be considered a public figure. The WP:LOWPROFILE essay states it is intended as a supplement to WP:BLP1E, and while I see some overlap with the public figure article linked in the text of the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy (e.g. the Eminence section), it seems clear there is a policy distinction, and a public figure is someone with a much wider scope of social influence than Harrington has ever achieved. The Daily Nebraskan source linked by and mentioned in my comment above as based mostly on an interview is a student newspaper, and therefore should not be considered substantial independent biographical coverage per our guidelines. The policies and guidelines of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT all appear to support deletion, and this discussion has failed to identify sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources to support any alternative to deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PUBLICFIGURE applies to the specific incident which is satisfied by CNN, USA Today, and the local newspapers and news. It does not demand this for any continuing coverage of her outside of that incident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems clear WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires more than a brief AP article about a ticket for allegedly being naked in public that was reprinted by USAToday and filed by CNN in its "offbeat" news section, an interview with a student newspaper, sensationalized tabloid-style news stories, and brief mentions, because the lack of significant coverage helps show she is not a public figure, and the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy requires more substantial and reliable coverage than this to include the allegations and incidents in the article, even if she was a public figure. Articles about public figures are subject to WP:BLP, so more significant, independent, and reliable sources are necessary to avoid serving as the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The multiple RS are there. You just don't like what they report on since it's WP:NOTIMPORTANT to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am interested in legal issues as a general topic, which is why I decided to participate in this discussion. After my research and this discussion, it appears to me that pursuant to the purpose and goals of Wikipedia, as expressed in various policies and guidelines, this article does not meet the standard for inclusion, and that is what is most important to me. My !vote would be different if there was significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and we could write an article in compliance with WP:BLP, but this does not appear possible at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Once was the face of a well-known lawsuit against Match.com for using fake photos with profiles. Picked up by the Daily News, Post and Daily Mail. But with additional notoriety from paywalled coverage in Lincoln's main paper, the love sponge incident, and being highly searched (see source I added), this doesn't work adding to the Match.com article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Daily news, post and the Daily Lies are all tabloids and coverage there has no relevance to enduring notability. Spartaz Humbug! 09:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - This is an absolute contravention of the BLP policy. Yes, there are sources showing that she had some notoriety, but per policy that’s not enough on its own to merit that we have such content on our site. The limited data in the article currently focuses on her criminal and legal record, and is entirely lacking (beyond job descriptions) in any ability to tell the reader who Harrington is… which is the point of a encyclopedic, biographical article. If more sources can be found, and the article can be flushed out to become an actual biography, then my position would change. But, as it stands, this article has no place on this site… and at a bare minimum should be nuked and begun over. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 01:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per CoffeeBeans☕️ (I think that's the person's user name? "shrug"). I'm not sure what I can add to what they said, so I'll leave it at that. Except to say that I agree the the sources showing she has some notoriety isn't enough. Especially considering what a lot of the sources are about. It's really against BLP policy IMO to have an article that is 99% about a persons legal issues. In fact, it's borderline an attack page. More so considering the nature of the accusations that are being made against her and the fact that from what I can tell their hasn't been any actual charges against her for any of it. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to be a celebrity gossip rag. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * She's been convicted at least twice for the charges that were levied against her, as noted by Becca, as a result of her publicity seeking. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Really low-level stuff. Spartaz Humbug! 09:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the convictions here are not of a magnitude of lasting notability that I feel we can ignore the drastic BLP issues going on with this article. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 17:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.