Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Melissa Harrington - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) at 16:54, 1 January 2022 (→Melissa Harrington: Agreed! Morbidthoughts and Deathlibrarian have won me over!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:54, 1 January 2022 by Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (→Melissa Harrington: Agreed! Morbidthoughts and Deathlibrarian have won me over!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Melissa Harrington

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Melissa Harrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 23:19, 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appear to support an article based on her 'courting controversy', e.g. "Melissa Midwest has now "demanded that she be withdrawn as a plaintiff" because she never agreed to be part of the lawsuit, according to the document."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, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages'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 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 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 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 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, Misplaced Pages 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)
Categories: