Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca Cummings


A stripper in Iowa. Completely non-notable. No entry in IMDB or rame.net, only Google hits are for Wikipedia & mirrors, and her home page. The newspaper story about her linked in the article is about how nobody has heard of her but she has a Wikipedia entry. Chowbok  ☠  15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Clearly does not meet WP:Bio. →Bobby ← 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Likely self-promotion abuse of wikipedia. Already given wikipedia some bad press Bwithh 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I also suggest a cleanup of the personalities listed in List of big-bust models and performers. I like naked girls, but I doubt they should feature in Wikipedia. Stammer 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete despite having won such wonderous accolades as "Miss Nude Iowa Duo Team of the Year". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but if anyone has a MediaWiki installation about X-rated stuff, then it can be transwiki'd across there. I think she's probably non-notable enough to not be in here. --SunStar Net 19:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Hello32020 20:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. --Don&#39;t mess with Scott. 02:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the major editor of the article so I don't know if I can vote but I do want to make a few points.
 * Rebecca meets the Notability (pornographic actors). Criteria point # 3 her unique contribution  is written in the final paragraph of her article. First bisexual president and her most notable is her speaking at colleges and universities  Criteria point # 4 by being the subject of an article in a major midwestern newspaper. (circulation 240,912) She was also interviewed by PervertRadio.com. Most notable of all of her awards is the one from the Miss Nude Galaxay national dance competition at Nudes-Poppin'. (also mentioned in John Stagliano
 * I was helped (corrected) by an Administrator user:Alkivar to make sure the uploaded image met all Wikipedia requirements. see Talk:Rebecca Cummings I was also helped (corrected) by Administrator Joe Beaudoin Jr. on the proper MoS standards for the article. see Talk:Rebecca Cummings The image has not been changed and the article has had very little content editing since they helped me and at no time did they suggest that the image or article should be deleted. They helped get it up to MoS standards.
 * The self promotion issue has also been dealt with by Administrator user:Alkivar. see Talk:Rebecca Cummings
 * On November 4, Chowbak tagged image:Rebecca Cummings.jpg for deletion and now 4 days later after personally attacking mine and Rebecca's integrity he lists the article for deletion. You've got to question why the article wasn't listed for deletion from the beginning?
 * FWIW, I wasn't trying to personally attack anyone's integrity; I just felt you had a different attitude about information distribution. That's perfectly honorable, but it does put you in conflict IMO with Wikipedia's founding principles. That's all I was trying to say. I hadn't looked closely at the article before you wrote that; upon closer examination I realized I had no idea why there was an article about her in the first place. Please assume good faith, and don't take any of this personally. I always may be wrong, but I do act for what I honestly believe is best for Wikipedia. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentI accept your explanation and will assume good faith.--HeartThrobs 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On here he falsely states "The newspaper story about her linked in the article is about how nobody has heard of her but she has a Wikipedia entry." The newspaper article says, "People didn't want to claim they knew her."  Nowhere in the article does it say that nobody has heard of her.--HeartThrobs 03:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither media coverage nor obscure awards nor local small-town organization leadership positions nor random speaking gigs automatically translate to encyclopedic notability Bwithh 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as the original admin consulted on the image pertaining to this article, I think we need to exclude any debate on the image here... that debate belongs on IFD not AFD. As for the self promotion angle, I feel this article has a very good balance between fact and promotional content. The article as written initially I feel proved that she passes the WP:PORNBIO guidelines. My initial thought was that this was self promotion, having later found out that HeartThrobs was a friend creating the bio and that it did not violated WP:AUTO changed my initial deletion decision. Having seen the article as it stands now, and after review again of the content and the references, I still feel that a strong case regarding her WP:PORNBIO "notability" is put forward. I think this belongs to stay on wikipedia.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please do not bite the newcomers, there is borderline notability here, sufficient enough to meet WP:BIO and our verifiability policies.  Yamaguchi先生 05:41, 9 November 2006
 * Comment Indeed Cummings has a case under the IMO incredibly lax  Notability (pornographic actors). Unless those guidelines are revised, as I think they should, it's hard to motivate a rejection. Stammer 07:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Alkivar's reasoning above on notability. I have struck out my earlier vote as such having seen this new evidence. --SunStar Net 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Notability (pornographic actors) she doesn't meet it. It's not any laxer than WP:BIO, it's just more specific. Point 3 is "unique, noteworthy contributions", and gives examples of beginning a trend or starring in an iconic or blockbuster feature. She has done neither. (Ron Jeremy is iconic. Co-starring with him isn't, thousands have.) Being the first bisexual president of a nameless gay/lesbian/bisexual organization isn't unique unless the organization is notable itself - after all, there seem to only be three orientation possibilities, and somebody has to be first for each. Point 4 is "subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy" and while the Des Moines Register is a fine newspaper, the article isn't about her, it's about the fact she, among other relative unknowns, has a Wikipedia article, how surprising. We try hard to avoid creating news like that. Also note that the article is humorous, even satirical, pointing out such facts that her name - allegedly real - is "Cummings", while her promotion agent's name writing her Wikipedia article -- I assume that's User:HeartThrobs? -- is "Goings". I chuckled out loud reading this line: "It's been said she is the most famous porn star in Iowa but she really is the only porn star in Iowa. The other one died this spring in a car accident in Vegas." Sorry. Having an article about an apparent error in Wikipedia shouldn't stop us from correcting the error. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've commented on the image separately, at Image_talk:Rebecca_Cummings.jpg. The issues are indeed separate, but the image owner's point of view... well, you can read it there. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * LBGT organizations can have one leader representative, but in this case, the nameless organization appears to be a small local organization or organization chapter.Bwithh 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a well-balanced article about a notable individual. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And what makes her notable? The news story about three Wikipedia articles including hers, or the past presidency of an organization the size or even name of which is not given? AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I felt that the positions she held (as opposed to the ones she worked in) were notable in and of themselves. Is there a specific "threshhold" for notability of organizations? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I found a number of ghits about her, but nothing to verify her history or the info about her "presidency". This definitely needs to be cited properly. I'm keeping an eye on this and will change to "Delete" if a valid cite isn't provided. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Along with not being notable enough for IMDB, as a porn actress she isn't even notable enough to have an IAFD page. Olessi 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Her article has been updated to indicate the name of the organization, ACCESS in Northeast Iowa. The person I talked to at ACCESS was not able to confirm the exact years she was president other then mid 1990's. The original wording about her being president came from her interview on PervertRadio. Her PervertRadio interview is cited in the article.--HeartThrobs 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alkivar. Dismas|(talk) 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable enough - Canderous Ordo 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 *  Keep. Please do save. 
 * hopiakuta ; &#91;&#91; &lt;nowiki&gt; &lt;/nowiki&gt; { &#91;&#91;%c2%a1]] &#91;&#91;%c2%bf]] &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Queston Her last name Cummings sounds fictional. She's a porn star and so she has this stage last name related to orgasm and semen. I think if that is not her real name then it detracts from the article's notability. Anomo 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding!? I'd be willing to bet that not even 1% of American porn stars or even strippers go by their real names.  Go through the porn star categories and you'll find many that live up to the notability requirements of WP:PORNBIO that don't have their birth names listed.  It doesn't make them any less notable.  The article for Jenna Jameson is well on its way to becoming a featured article yet that is not her birth name.  And let's not even get started on mainstream actors that have had false names such as Alan Alda, Cary Grant, and John Wayne. Dismas|(talk) 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Obviously I think this should be deleted, but the fact that she has an assumed name shouldn't be a factor in consideration. Especially for somebody in porn. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. She fits the notability criteria from the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). -- TrojanMan 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with all other points made for keeping the article. -- HowardDean 21:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Obviously I'm biased since I nominated it, but I have to say I'm struck that people are voting "Keep" without even addressing AnonEMouse's points. Since this isn't a vote but rather a discussion, I hope that the admin recognizes that and deletes regardless of the actual headcount (unless, of course, a really killer argument has been made on the "Keep" side. But I haven't seen that yet). &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - well, AnonEMouse is certainly our resident expert, and his points were well made. For many of us though, Cummings seems to be in a "grey area", notability wise. While she's certainly hasn't achieved the notoriety of Ron Jeremy or Jenna Jameson (sp?), neither is she an anonymous model with a personal ad in the back of a men's magazine. I know that my next comment isn't really considered a valid argument, but if we can have articles about Pokemon characters or cartoon strips that only appear on Blogs, then a semi-notable porn star doesn't seem like such a big stretch. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "an anonymous model with a personal ad in the back of a men's magazine" basically sums it up. She's a stripper from some Iowa town selling videos of herself on her web page. You'll get no argument from me that there are lots of superfluous articles on Wikipedia, but really, that way lies madness. We could never delete anything if "look at all these other articles that need to be deleted" was an acceptable argument... unless every single non-notable article was put up on AFD at the same time. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now there's an amusing idea; nom it all at once, then sit back and watch the fireworks. Like I said, not an acceptable argument in itself, it just seems that in borderline cases it's better to err on the side of Inclusion. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I was not sure what to do with this one. I did not like the suggestion to basically ignore the keep votes.  But your comment may sum it up.  This is a borderline call so no consensus or keep is probably they right outcome.  So I'll say Keep.  Vegaswikian 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please she meets the notability criteria for pornographers Yuckfoo 20:25, 13 November 2006 (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.