Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Mattix

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Mattix

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

For WP:BLP1E. Not that it matters but the article’s neutrality issues also neglect to mention the documentary she participated in such as VH1’s Rock Docs Let’s Spend the Night Together a decade ago where she boasted to Pamela Des Barres about “so many great memories” regarding her groupie days with Page et al. She’s never even called the men rapists as she says she consented during the alleged encounters. Gotta give both sides. The fact remains that this rumor/allegation has never been verified independently or the alleged artists never confirmed their side of the story. Her only “notability” is being a groupie 40 years ago (not notable unless you do actually do something with it) and being tracked down by #MeToo to relitigate. Outside of this allegation, absolutely nothing can be found about her life, so this article isn’t even her biography. What it comes down to is notability is not inherited. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I think there are a few problems with deletion request. First, the "gotta give both sides" issue mentioned above can be fixed by including the above-mentioned source; deletion is not required to solve this problem.
Second, the issue of "she didn't refer to it as rape" isn't really a side left out of the discussion because the article only discusses the legal analysis of the rape. Statutory rape, in the United States, does not factor in the victim's perception of the events or whether nominal consent was given. Therefore, Ms. Mattix's perception of the events, and her claims that she consented have no bearing on whether statutory rape occurred. This would obviously be very different if forcible rape were being alleged, but it is not.
Third, the WP:BLP1E page allows articles for people who are famous for one reason IF the reason for which they are famous is independently notable. I think the Me Too movement is big enough to be considered notable on its own. The page says that an individual's article may be protected from deletion "because the single event [s]he was associated with...was significant."
Fourth, there are twenty-nine other articles in the Category:Groupies category that have not been deleted so I think it would be inconsistent to delete one when so many others remain. Et0048 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Et0048: I know that "gotta give both sides" aspect isn't relevant to deletion itself. I just think the article has a biased agenda.

A lot of the "groupies" in that category already had their own notability for an article (Luciana Gimenez is tv host and model in Brazil and had a career long before she got pregnant by Mick Jagger. Bebe Buell was already a model and a singer before getting pregnant by Steven Tyler. Pamela Des Barres became an author and media personality, so she isn't just famous for being a groupie anymore. Cynthia Plaster Caster is the subject of a song by Kiss and the subject of a doctumentary and made an art career out of her collections. Margaret Moser became a journalist for crying out loud.) No need to group anyone together because this AfD is for this person. This is a case by case basis.

Having a sexual misconduct allegation is not automatic notability even if the movement has grown. MeToo doesn't grant notability, unless actions happen from it. And certainly this event doesn't grand that because it's not like she came out and said "MeToo", if anything this it was whataboutism from social media users as the article says. Jimmy Page, Mick Jagger, nor the late David Bowie never were arrested or investigated for these allegations. It's nothing more than gossip with no evidence. Trillfendi (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, it needs more elaboration and to be expanded, the subjects on the article have deep cultural relevance; I assume we all know that -leaving aside details- all this was real; The fact that the people involved never were arrested and that society at the time seemed not to care for the things mentioned on it are a key point to note; this is not just about Mattix but something way bigger--Agustin6 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to what you just said. Trillfendi (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi There is an Iggy Pop lyric where he literally says he had a relation with one of the baby groupies when she was 13 years old, and there is a lot of pictures of these groupies with musicians -including Jimmy Page-, it is not a gossip; it can be checked easily if those women lied about their actual age, the year the pictures/songs about them fit the dates. (I was a fan of Led Zep, nothing of this is new, I'd just never knew how old they were; their characters on Cameron Crowe's movie were 16 perhaps to avoid the controversy). --Agustin6 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability could be established as long as multiple independent, reliable sources talk about subject and especially this article has a huge relevant on notable "Me Too" culture. This article seems to have all the checks to stay in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basing an article on an unconfirmed rumor. Groundbreaking. Trillfendi (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to split hairs too much, but the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations pages, among many others, are "based on unconfirmed rumors." So long as the article points out that the allegations are, in fact, allegations, this doesn't seem to be a disqualifier. Et0048 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those had actual research go into it though, by reputable publications such as the Wall Street Journal and the White House has commented on those.... This rumor is ubstantiated gossip, if anything, the article should be renamed accordingly, such as Jimmy Page sexual misconduct allegations but even then, that’s unethical in my opinion because we still haven’t heard his side. Trillfendi (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not Notable as an article, suggest redirecting to the notable artist articles. Lubbad85 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that seems like a more reasonable choice compared to keeping it. Trillfendi (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus on this page is that the article should be expanded if anything, not shrunk to a small mention on an artist's page following a redirect. Given that on both the Jimmy Page and David Bowie pages, there has been substantial resistance to so much as putting Ms. Mattix's name on either those pages, it's highly unlikely that any mention of her on those pages would contain enough information to cover the matter properly. It's best left to its own page. Et0048 (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The woman is not notable no matter which way people try to steer around it. There is resistance to it because people know this is not the Daily Mail. This is not place for rumors without any kind of verification. Hell, even a comment on it. I could say Idris Elba groped my left butt cheek—what would that mean if I didn’t have any evidence to back it up? Nothing. It would be a rumor. Even if I said I “enjoyed” it. So the fact that this allegation is only “worthy” of a blip on either musician’s page tells you everything you need to know about it. We know absolutely nothing about this woman’s life besides “she was a groupie at 13.” A whole article for someone just for claiming they had consensual sex with a celebrity? Ridiculous. Trillfendi (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In trying to disentangle the various parts of the nomination, it seems like the nomination is basically confused about WP:NPOV (representing what is in reliable sources, good) and WP:NNC (applying notability standards to article contents, bad). Nonetheless, focusing on the policy-based rationale for deletion (WP:BLP1E), it's obvious from a simple Google search that the subject has been covered by multiple RS over multiple events (with multiple people), so it's a pass of WP:GNG that is not ruled out by WP:BLP1E. It's worth noting that the sole redirect !vote above does not suggest a specific target, and indeed can't, since multiple valid targets are supported by RS, precisely because it is not a WP:BLP1E situation. Bakazaka (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not confused on NPOV vs BLP1E. I simply opined that what’s the point of this article based on an allegation if it’s not even giving the entire version of alleged events, serving to victimize Ms. Mattix for a sexual misconduct “reckoning” when by all accounts (those only coming from her of course, it was the opposite). The fact remains, she’s only seen as “notable” to people for a rumor, not her own merits. What career does she have to speak of? What biographical facts can even be confirmed besides “she was once a teenager in California?” All notability is on Jimmy Page for that matter; the 2 sentences in his personal life section sum it up for what it is. That’s that on that. Trillfendi (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A person doesnt need to have a career to be considered notable nor what happened has a merit of true. Notability is measured by "worthy of notice" (as this article has a culture relevant) whereby the subject is mentioned by multiple independent, reliable source which the content of the article claimed . There are/were many groupies or teenagers had many group sex especially during the late 60's early 70's during the "free love" era, or many rape victims were killed, but no independent sources talk about them and that is considered not notable in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not convinced by the WP:BLP1E argument; her interaction with these people went on for years, regardless of its reporting (and many of the refs used in the article span several years; E.g. it wasn't just one reporting "event"). My biggest issue is that there is no real WP:SIGCOV here. I could not find an article on her from a material Tier 1 RS (as opposed to her being mentioned in a David Bowie/Jimmy Page articles; many of which are not strong RS). Even her other WP:RS seem weak; evidenced by how little real BIO details we have on her (e.g. the classic sign for me of a lack of a SIGCOV article). She is interesting and I could see readers wanting to know about her, however I'm am not sure she clearly meets WP:GNG criteria? Britishfinance (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many situations in which Wikipedia might have an article about a person, but not have certain biographical details, or even a birth name, available. The extreme example is the featured article on D. B. Cooper, but of course authors write under pseudonyms, victimized people seek to minimize the chances of revictimization, and professionals in certain fields might seek to obscure their personal details (e.g. modeling agencies lying about DOB and height to maximize the chance for models to get hired). So lacking biographical details does not necessarily indicate anything bad. It may, in fact, mean that Wikipedia is handling a sensitive matter correctly. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My point is that in the case of this BLP, the lack of any WP:SIGCOV means that we have no wider biographical details. It is of course not a universal one-to-one relationship, but BLPs with no SIGCOV usually lack core biographical details, as most of their GNG is from less substantive sources. Not having WP:SIGCOV doesn't automatically stop a BLP, but for a current living BLP candidate not to have SIGCOV, is a material issue imho. Britishfinance (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2019 (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.