Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tove Jensen (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, since the lack of reliable sources necessary for a biography has not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tove Jensen
AfDs for this article:
Article was prodded twice ignoring prior AFD. This new AFD is one year later. Same issue still there. No reliable sources to verify notability under WP:BIO. There is not even a claim of importance or significance of the subject either. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V. Tove has been a widely known porn legend for 30 years, but I have never seen anything about her from a credible source. Aside from a small, but memorable body of work, there are few facts and stories conflict. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Thoroughly invisible in GNews Archive, GBooks and GScholar. The only web sources appear to be non-independent, forums, or blogs. Given some claims that she may have been underage, when the only cited thing in the article is her age and the source is IMDB, we're treading on very thin ice. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- weak keep - Searches should probably be made under the working alias Tiny Tove, and not her real name. With that in mind, while I can admit it seems a non-notable topic, Dhartung's source found above may indicate that Wikipedia should perhaps have something about this person, considering the content of that article. I'd have to assume SOMETHING must exist out there about her, and given the ambivalent legal status of her works she seems notable enough for here. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The Internet trading of Tove images led to one of the first digital copyright infringement cases. Out of the thousands of Color Climax performers, Tove is one of only a few that CC advertises by name on their website. Tove is also at the center of what appears to be a whistleblower blog as noted above. The DOJ has successfully prosecuted her footage as child pornography, sometime in the '90's, yet allow the continued distribution of the same footage. In essense, it's notable that the companies that own the Tove copyrights, and the DOJ that owns the conviction of her footage, have not produced verifiable information regarding Tove. Even after a U.S. Senator requested an investigation into one of the companies that are distributing the prosecuted footage. In short, Tove is currently at the center of a conspiracy regarding the legality of her productions which could affect millions of individuals, and calls into question the conduct of federal officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazz (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can this assertion be verified by independent reliable secondary sources as required under WP:N and WP:V? So far the evidence for notability comes from blogs or primary sources. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As a lawyer you know that the "best evidence" is the primary source. In this case, it's the court documents and related correspondence (albeit redacted), the contents of which are supported by links to secondary sources. To me, they carry the same weight as if they were posted on Wikileaks or a filehosting site. I don't see how a secondary source could verify a court transcript or personal correspondence anymore than Wikileaks can verify annonymous uploaded email correspondence. And good luck getting any of the identified agencies (FBI, U.S. Senate, Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division, U.S. Postal Inspection Service) to confirm any of those documents, one of which retains the signature. Which leads into a point I was making. The lack of verifiability is part of what makes Tove notable. To use Nandesuka's example below, compare the Traci Lords article to Tove's. Both had their commercial productions prosecuted by federal authorities, but only Lords created national hysteria, and a mass destruction of her titles, and continued prosecution of their possesion, distribution etc. Which is the main reason we know so much about Lords. Why would Tove be any different? That said, there's no argument that the article in its current form is lacking, but fixing it presents a dilema. If you don't believe the court documents on the whistleblower blog, then one is free to update the article, with links and fair use photos consistent with the DVD releases of her productions. If the court documents gives one pause as to whether to add a link or photo, that in itself is notable as you are engaging in self-censorship. Something at least one website has done. Nazz (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Irrelevant. WP:V clearly states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" while WP:PSTS states, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The difference between Traci Lords and Tiny Tove is that Traci is notable because she's been the subject of extensive coverage by mainstream media. Vinh1313 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As a lawyer you know that the "best evidence" is the primary source. In this case, it's the court documents and related correspondence (albeit redacted), the contents of which are supported by links to secondary sources. To me, they carry the same weight as if they were posted on Wikileaks or a filehosting site. I don't see how a secondary source could verify a court transcript or personal correspondence anymore than Wikileaks can verify annonymous uploaded email correspondence. And good luck getting any of the identified agencies (FBI, U.S. Senate, Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division, U.S. Postal Inspection Service) to confirm any of those documents, one of which retains the signature. Which leads into a point I was making. The lack of verifiability is part of what makes Tove notable. To use Nandesuka's example below, compare the Traci Lords article to Tove's. Both had their commercial productions prosecuted by federal authorities, but only Lords created national hysteria, and a mass destruction of her titles, and continued prosecution of their possesion, distribution etc. Which is the main reason we know so much about Lords. Why would Tove be any different? That said, there's no argument that the article in its current form is lacking, but fixing it presents a dilema. If you don't believe the court documents on the whistleblower blog, then one is free to update the article, with links and fair use photos consistent with the DVD releases of her productions. If the court documents gives one pause as to whether to add a link or photo, that in itself is notable as you are engaging in self-censorship. Something at least one website has done. Nazz (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can this assertion be verified by independent reliable secondary sources as required under WP:N and WP:V? So far the evidence for notability comes from blogs or primary sources. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of reliable sources. Tove Jensen clearly is "notable" and would be deserving of an article if reliable sources could be found on her. One of the most interesting things about Tove is that she is one of a very small number of late-1970's era Color Climax "loop" actresses who can be consistently identified by name. Unfortunately, all of the material that exists about her consists of fan/forum quality "urban legend" type material, combined with marketing material from Color Climax. There's simply no reliable independent sources that tell us anything about who she is or her career arc. For comparison, look at the article on Bodil Joensen, also an 'underground' phenom porn star, and note the variety and quality of the sources therein. Given the disparity here, I don't think this article on Tove Jensen is salvagable: a name, a birthday, and a list of movie titles simply isn't enough to have a meaningful encyclopedia article. Nandesuka (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Just more NN porn spam. --RucasHost (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- delete if Nazz can find any reliable sources to back up what he is saying then keep, otherwise this needs to go. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2008 (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.
