Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Absolute


 * 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. JForget 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistress Absolute

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Despite breathless comments from sex sites, this is basically an advertisement for a non-notable sex worker. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.  Rhomb (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shameless publicity-seeking. Richard75 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with both these Comment's made by Edgarde. The article writen to inform those in Fetish scene of Mistress Absolutes day to day activities, yes these include references to other sites but how is that different from Kylie minogue naming her last album?

Also that Mistress Absolute is a non-notable sex worker is completely wrong... She does not work as a sex worker, She works as a proffesional Mistress there is a big difference! She also teach's, write's, is interviewed, run's a club and has one of the largest weekends in the UK for Fetish enthusiasts.

I find the fact that this article has been noted for deletion to be completely discriminatory against a sub-culture and one of most notable characters./ User:Malstrome User_talk:Malstrome 08:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistress Absolute is not a sex worker. She is a professional dominatrix. There is no advertising on this page. She doesn't post her rates, times available, schedule, how to get a hold of her, etc.

I have to disagree with both these Comment's made by Edgarde. The article was written to inform those in Fetish scene of Mistress Absolutes day to day activities, yes these include references to other sites but how is that different from Kylie Minogue naming her last album? Also that Mistress Absolute is a non-notable sex worker is completely wrong... She does not work as a sex worker, She works as a professional Mistress there is a big difference! She also teaches, writes, performs, is interviewed, run's a club and has one of the largest weekends in the UK for Fetish enthusiasts. I find the fact that this article has been noted for deletion to be completely discriminatory against a sub-culture and one of most notable characters“ When i first added the article it was deleted over 10 times basically because they didn’t want a Professional Mistress promoting themselves on the site. i argued on several occasions that this was no different from an article about Betty Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_page) but this lead nowhere as i believe the only reason Betty Page was allowed on was because she gave up the industry and converted to Christianity then served as a Missionary. Apart from her being in a non normative industry what is the actual issue here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbysoluteslave (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that User:Malstrome and User:Abbysoluteslave have contributed identical remarks to this discussion and that each of them has contributed nothing else save similar or identical attempts to promote the aubject of this article, leads me to suspect sockpuppetry.  I have opened a case at Sockpuppet investigations/Malstrome‎.  Rhomb (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If you looked at our IP addresses...He is in London and I live in Los Angeles, CA. Now how is that? We know each other from across the pond and discussed this before. How is it that only you are against this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbysoluteslave (talk • contribs) 17:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article subject has received absolutely no non-trivial coverage in any reliable source unrelated to the subject. This appears to be nothing but promo. Wikipedia is not here to provide anyone with free publicity. --NellieBly (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And what on a person page makes it or does not make it a promo? If you delete one page about a specific person, delete them all. She is a featured person in many Newspapers and Televevision stations INCLUDING THE BBC! You have not stated any reason to WHY this is nothing but a promo, but just that you think it is. You can't justify on a feeling.

I have to agree simply mentioning the activities that Mistress Absolute is involved in can in no way be considered a promo. Would you consider stating that she is living in London an endorsement, advertisement or promo for only living in London? this is no different from a recording Artist publishing there Discography! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.2.105 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * comment. Going by the name of one of the main contributors and the promotional tone, I wonder if there is some WP:COI or paid editing issues here? --Rootless Juice (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 05:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the sources listed (or anything else that I can find) seem to satisfy the need for reliable third party sources. 213.105.245.156 (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

An interested editor such as or  is certainly welcome to temporarily keep this article in userspace if they wish to perserve this work until such a time as notability via WP:BIO can be demonstrated. This was eventually done with CyanogenMod, which is now an article, having received unanimous Keep votes in its AFD after being restored from userspace. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with major editing. The extended treatment in the LA Weekly is definitely a start. Add The Guardian's mention  and a paywalled hit at The Independent, and I think that we have about as much mainstream media coverage as is possible for a dominatrix. Judging from the treatment in those articles and in the domination-focused sites that are cited, she is apparently significant. I agree that the article relies to heavily on poorly-sourced information, and I have concerns that it is at least partially an advertising or fan page at present. Avram (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Based on the comments below, I now agree that this should be deleted. Avram (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete* No evidence that this is a real person, and not a "brand" (hence advertising). A simple whois on the domain alleged to be owned by "her" bears this out. Annette46 (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the LA weekly article is about a real person, I think they would mention if it was a brand. Polarpanda (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The L.A. Weekly is an advertising broadsheet. The article itself is a shameless plug for Coco-de-mer (sex shop) and Miss Absolute. Annette46 (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2d !vote by this editor. To avoid the appearance of !votestacking,  is recommended.
 * Delete as spam. Also recommend Salt based on apparent sockpuppetry, coi, and recreation. Edward321 (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. LA Weekly has not been a reliable source since it stopped serious fact-checking of its articles years ago, and too much of its "coverage" is low-grade promotion for friends or associates of its contributors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO and is an apparent promotion attempt. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just reworked the article to remove the obviously unsourced and repetitive content. What is left is fairly verifiable and exhausts (I believe) the known third-party coverage of Mistress Absolute. Now perhaps we can look past the sockpuppetry and spam that marred the article-- what about the present state of this article? Is it worth keeping? Avram (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm still not sure this meets WP:BIO, it certainly is much improved. Thanks for doing this. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How substantial was the coverage in The Independent? Polarpanda (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Independent had a fairly short piece (stable paywalled URL) by a reporter about her experience with rubber fetishes, led by Mistress Absolute. The main subject of the article is rubber fetishes, but the only person she discusses is Mistress Absolute. Avram (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvement, Avram. However, what we're seeing I think is verification rather than notability.  It's significant that we have no information about MA except her first name, beyond the fact that she's well-publicised.    That doesn't make her notable in my book.  Rhomb (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am leaning towards delete, but I have some sympathy for the sock-puppets' arguments of bias here. I'm having trouble understanding whether the reviews of MA and coverage of her on BDSM sites amount to much; presumably there are people who are leading figures in the not-small world of BDSM, but I don't know what to take seriously in the 90% hype world of sites discussing people like MA. We certainly don't expect to see extended discussion and reviews of dominatrixes in the main-stream media. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the criteria used for establishing notability of pornographic actors/actresses? Avram (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many niche interests have this problem&mdash;see CyanogenMod for an example&mdash;and I would not attribute it to bias and discrimination (as charged in multiple comments above). However, when there appears to be a fan following among Wikipedia editors, the inability of such highly motivated editors to meet WP:GNG when pressed is itself an indicator of WP:Notability problems. There exists sufficient interest in BDSM that independent, reliable, secondary sources will exist for notable personalities.
 * Delete. the trimmed article now exposes (sorry!) how non-notable she is. Also fails WP:PORNBIO Annette46 (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3d !vote by this editor. To avoid the appearance of !votestacking,  is recommended.
 * Comment While I nominated this article, I am now neutral on retaining it. Wikipedia may not need an entry on Mistress Absolute, but with the ad drivel purged, this article no longer agonizes me to the degree where deletion seems imperative. I would suggest one of Absolute's fans on WP take the opportunity to userfy this article upon deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:31, 23 December 2009 (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.