Talk:Christy Mack

What Problems

What are the problems with this article? JMichael22 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has a number of issues but the two primaries are these:

WP:NOTE and WP:RELIABLE

The article relies almost entirely on Xbiz, a trade magazine for pornographic web masters and the "Internet Adult Film Database". Wikipedia explicitly recommends against using the much more widely credible IMDB as a source. Xbiz has issue with objectivity given its trade magazine status. The only other piece by Vice magazine is questionable. Vice is essentially a People magazine-style publication (human interest and opinion pieces rather than objective journalism or peer reviewed research). Perhaps the piece could be used as a notability reference but beyond that it should probably not be included.

The notability issue is more damning and I based on that rule there is a case for removing this article entirely. The fact is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a listing of sex workers or even mainstream media actresses. Actresses who are included should have a significant impact on their respective culture or society relevant to inclusion. One preliminary test I use is simply, "would this person or topic be included in any other encyclopedia? In the case of Ms. Mack, I believe the answer to that question is frankly, no - including her in any other encyclopedia with her own article would be completely unimaginable, other than perhaps included in a larger article about pornography. WP:IINFO is relevant here: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." The fact that editors are unable to find citations that meet WP:RELIABLE is itself evidence that other publications do not find Ms Mack to be a topic of import or significance (although she may very well be highly skilled, competent and significant as a member or her industry or to her customers - I would not allege otherwise).

Given all the issues I have outlined above I am going to propose this article be considered for deletion. My opinion is absolutely not the end of the issue and there will be plenty of opportunity for other editors to disagree and amend the article in such a way as to demonstrate that I am incorrect and the article is in fact worthy of inclusion. Jaydubya93 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"One preliminary test I use is simply, 'would this person or topic be included in any other encyclopedia?'" You shouldn't be using that kind of test at all, since this is Wikipedia, not "any other encyclopedia". Wikipedia is unique, and it has its own inclusion rules, which should be followed, not ignored because one might not like the subject matter in question. Guy1890 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal

I have proposed this article for deletion or the reasons outlined above. Please join the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christy_Mack to add your views to the debate. Please note that the link above is where comments should be directed in order to confirm or debate with the proposal for deletion: comments placed here on the talk page may or may not make it into the debate. Jaydubya93 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Tattoos and hairstyle

There seems to be some disagreement over whether Mack's tattoos and hairstyle are noteworthy. Here's my argument for keeping the sections and a response to the reason why they were removed:

First, Mack is easily identifiable by her tattoos and hairstyle. There aren't that many notable porn stars (even in this rather counter culture occupation) who are as decorated as Mack. The only exceptions that come to mind are Bonnie Rotten and Janine Lindemulder.

Second, the tattoos are noteworthy enough that we have two sources for the information that we have on them. People have taken the time to note them, why can't we?

Third, since the sources say that she designed them herself, it seems like a natural thing to include such a permanent part of her look. And after all, isn't a porn star's looks what they bank on? What in great part makes them successful?

Forth, the same can be said for her hairstyle, though we only have one source for that and hair grows back. But the rest of my points apply.

Fifth, JMichael22 contends that her tattoos are not what makes her famous. I agree. But then having an ATP and CFI are not what make Dexter Holland famous but we note both of those licenses in his article. Yes, yes, I know you're going to follow this up with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but I think with my other arguments for inclusion, that's a minor nit.

Sixth, and finally, JMichael also contends that it is unnecessary to give information on the tattoos. I follow that up with WP:NNC. She's not notable for her tattoos or hair, granted. But per WP:NNC, we are also not giving this information WP:UNDUE weight. They get a few sentences and that's that. We're not listing every tattoo.

For those reasons, I am putting the information back in. Dismas|^(talk) 04:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I always try to format porn biographies the same way as biographies on mainstream celebrities, and mainstream celebrities with tattoos, such as Angelina Jolie (Angelina_Jolie#In_the_media) and Megan Fox (Megan_Fox#Image), have their tattoos mentioned in their WP articles and porn actors should too, especially if what they are known for is their appearances in alt porn. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

addition

she is in the List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle

--Über-Blick (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)