Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Matisse (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Mistress Matisse

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:AUTO, WP:N, WP:SPIP Belchfire (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment At least at first glance, the reasons given for deletion do not seem to apply. The previous AfD discussion in 2007 concluded that the subject was notable and, looking at the article history, I see absolutely no indication that any of the editors either are or have any close connection with the article subject. Consensus can change, of course, especially where (as here) BLP applies - but on present evidence, I'd have to say keep PWilkinson (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete . Keep. Not even close. See below. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm a high-bar-for-porn-related-articles guy. I've got nothing against porn, mind you, but encyclopedias should be about encyclopedic things. Garage band cruft, TV show cruft, that hurts nobody. Porn cruft undermines WP's educational mission by potentially making it the object of scorn and access restriction by the right. You want vapid pseudo-bios of stupid no-name porn stars because it's a particular hobby of yours? This is not the place. That's where I'm coming from, and that said, I think this is a keeper as a sex columnist. Footnotes 2 and 4 showing appear to be legit significant third party sources of the sort we look for in assessing notability at AfD. 120,000 Google hits for the exact phrases "Mistress Matisse" indicates an iceberg big enough to produce another notability snocone or two. File next to Dan Savage. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it, although I only get 77,000 Google hits. I really fail to see the usefulness of the article, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I too question the rationale given in the nominator's statement. Please quote which guidelines this article violates, and how. Failing that, I have to vote Keep as the subject seems to meet WP:GNG. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 00:09, 14 September 2011 (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.