Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Belle Knox

Why would you delete this article? I saw a news article about this individual today and the first thing I did was check Wikipedia to learn more about who this person is and what the controversy around them is. Honestly from my perspective this deletion seems like censorship. I (and others) would like access to information about this individual. Shouldn't THAT be the main criteria that we base a deletion on? (Special:Contributions/208.65.192.5)
 * In a word, no. Lagrange613 20:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this is obviously not the kind of thing that that guideline is about. The IP has a valid point, and the guideline says If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful".&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is one of the failings of Wikipedia. Articles are deleted far too often and policy takes precedence. One of the reasons why I don't spend much time editing here anymore. Web Warlock (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not the failing of "Wikipedia", its a failing of the editors who run rampant through the site deleting articles based on their personal biases. Not just the anti-porn ones, the whole "I don't like it" movement. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article will be back soon enough. Don't let the bullies get you down. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Banned User
 * Ugh... Oh well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The real censorship was those wikipedia editors who censored her real name (even on the talk page!). Not only did they revert the edit, they wiped it from the history of wikipedia (very Orwellian), and BANNED those who dared question the groupthink.  I'm glad reason has prevailed, and my opinion has been vindicated!  173.230.182.230 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How can you be vindicated, the article is gone? Without the article your efforts were futile, there's no place to put her name now regardless of what the opinion is about doing that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My position is she's only notable as a porn star because she was outed. If Wikipedia wants to pull a Lord Voldemort on She-Who-Cannot-Be-Named, then this article has no reason to exist and should be deleted.173.230.182.230 (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The censorship you are referring to was the result of at least two separate discussions where the consensus was to avoid using her real name for BLP reasons, at least for now. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And I pointed out the hypocrisy of this, given the lengthy speculation of identity on the satoshi nakamoto article. 173.230.182.230 (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've readded this discussion per the advice of another admin, but the end result is that the AfD is over and any further arguments towards its recreation should run through deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)