Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toppsy Curvey

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. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toppsy Curvey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject passes GNG or any other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Why were the 16 Google news hits not mentioned in the AfD nomination or the Prod? Why was the performer's real name removed when it is easily sourceable? And why is not the removal of such easily sourceable information, and the ignoring-- or, possibly, not even looking for-- mainstream news sourcing when prodding or nominating for deletion not a blockable offense? Dekkappai (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and mentions in three Google Books (at least two of which print her name). I'm not interested in the article, but it's pretty obvious nobody even looked around here. It's truly sickening that this is standard procedure here. Dekkappai (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bit about her two notable appearances at major league baseball games, which got coverage in the news and in books. She has appeared on notable televisions shows as well. So clearly notable. Dream Focus 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT, fails WP:PORNBIO, fails the GNG. Only claim to notability is for running onto field at baseball games and trying to kiss the pitcher, a copycat publicity stunt that falls under BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is so trivial that reports don't even agree on what her "real" name is. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her real name is Catherine Stathopoulos. Catherine is sometimes abbreviated as Kathy. Those are the only two variations in her name that I see. And she was covered in many places, and did the cover of magazines, BEFORE the two baseball events. Do you think all those television shows listed in the article interviewed her just for that one event? Dream Focus 15:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you haven't encountered Hullaballoo before, Dream Focus. His M.O. is to claim something like the L.A. Times is an unreliable source-- sometimes claiming it is a mirror of Wikipedia. "No lie is too extravagant in the service of censorship" is his motto... Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, he appears to be right; one of the sources in the article (You be the Umpire) appears to refer to her as "Laurie Stathopoulos." At least, as far as I can tell from the Google snippet. Another (Sports and Courts) definitely does. Shimeru (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with multiple mainstream appearances. Also, THIS shows she is mentioned in multiple reliable sourcing-- newspapers spanning a decade-- including Miami Herald, LA Times, etc.-- and book publications. Claims (now) of BLP1E are disingenuous as best, and more likely-- considering the ignoring of easy sourcing, or total lack of attempt to even look for it-- flat-out dishonest. But what else is new? Dekkappai (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. Tabercil (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting requirements of WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO as shown by User:Dekkappai's excellent google-foo and WP:AFTER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish. There is no sourcing for the "multiple mainstream appearances" claim, and no more than one of those appearances can be documented at all -- not that tabloid TV appearances amount to featured appearances in notable mainstream media, the requirement of WP:PORNBIO. There's also no substantiation for the claim that the GNG is satisfied -- there's no "'Significant coverage', ... sources address[ing] the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In those supposed sources, there's little more about the subject than her stage name, occupation, and various inconsistent reports of her "real" name. Several of those googled sources simply include "Toppsy Curvey" on lists of implausible stage names. There are only two reasons behind the insistence on keeping this article, and neither the right nor the left one has any grounding in Wikipedia policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Dekkappai. I remember those kissing events being in the news in 1991 actually, they received wide coverage. Wikipedia's depth is one of its greatest strengths.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage in multiple sources, but really--this is not the end of the world, gentlemen. Please extend courtesy to each other even when you disagree. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.