Talk:Shelley Lubben

Truth Behind the Fantasy of Porn: The Greatest Illusion on Earth was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 December 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Shelley Lubben. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Religion: Interfaith Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Pornography Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Slubben (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

This article was originally created by User:Slubben under the title of Roxy, which can be seen here. I've cut'n'paste the user's original article to it's own individual page. No editing has been done to Slubben's article. Tabercil 04:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Slubben" seems to be, per reasoning, the wikipedia username for Shelley Lubben. While this may (or may have) violate(d) NPOV, the article seems now to be mostly neutral. 70.144.27.53 (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

someone added an external link to a porn movie cover of the movie "Roxy, a Gang Bang Fantasy". I assume this isn't per guidelines but am leaving as I don't know for sure Drunken Pirate 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That my friend is called linkspam. Their intent I believe was to have the actual cover pop-up on display. I've pulled the link out. Tabercil 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prod notice because the article has one reference that is linked to the CBN, which proves that reliable sources can be obtainable. Also this article has been edited extensively by other users after Lubben started it at Roxy. Instead I've added a cleanup/dispute template noting that the article is based mostly on self published resources, and needs more 3rd-party resources. Deletion does not replace cleanup --w^{L<speak·check>} 08:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the alleged reference is labeled "testimony" and appears to be largely compiled from Luben's blogs. It's not intellectually independent if she submitted it. What exactly is she allegedly notable for? Article fails WP:Pornbio, WP:NPOV and doesn't meet appear to have any chance of meeting WP:N. Quasi-fame and relentless self promotion are not synonymous with notability.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been CSD'd for that. Which it has. --w^{L<speak·check>}

Google News Search indicates she is notable under the general criteria of WP:BIO Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute this. I'm not sure she's non-notable, but I don't think notability is sufficiently established by Google News. She's quoted here and there, but she's only the subject of an article in one or two notable sources. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think the Google News search results establish clear notability. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really. There are only 25 hits, so I looked at each one. Three were what I would call profiles, six appeared to be "fluff" profiles (all in languages other than English; I don't care enough to translate and analyze the content), six had quotes (all but one in reference to the tax bill), four were passing mentions, three could not be determined (presumably irrelevant), one was spam, and one was unavailable. I'm not intimately familiar with the criteria, but that seems awfully light. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget there's an article in the National Post (which is one of two national newspapers in Canada) which is not in the Google News results (but is present as a source in the main article). And by Googling, I was able to locate this page at the NBC affiliate in LA. And that's not counting any porn biz sources for Shelly (which would probably be on the scathing side). Individually they're thin, but I think it all adds together to provide notability. Tabercil (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following link contains biographical information about Lubben. Parts of her biographical statements from this video have been included under the "Biography" section of this article. Specifically, she speaks in the video of how she contracted herpes while performing sex acts as an adult film actress, and that biographical fact has been included on this page. To the person who doesn't want this in the biography and keeps deleting it, you are misrepresenting Lubben's biographical information by omitting this important fact concerning her life. And a biographical page is intended to contain biographical information, that is, information about one's life. If you want to counter a fact that is such an inconvenience for you, please research that video or any other appropriate biographical sources on Lubben and cite them before including your counterarguments to facts that you are not comfortable with. Otherwise, please refrain from tampering with this biographical webpage. The link is: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=shelley+lubben&hl=en&emb=0&aq=-1&oq=shelley+lubb# --Tagank (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a claim, not a fact, which is more appropriate to her website than an encyclopedia. I'm aware she makes the claim, just as I'm aware she's claimed that god cured her Herpes, and that the porn industry is responsible for her drug/alcohol problems even though her own bio states she was an addict for 5 years prior to her first porn scene. That she had substance problems, worked in porn, and caught herpes nobody is disputing. Nor do I disbelieve that she was diagnosed after she started in porn, and left the industry as a result. I commend her for leaving under the circumstance. However, Herpes [1] is frequently asymptomatic in people that have it. Therefore, when someone was a prostitute for years, and had numerous sex partners outside of porn during their career, it's not exactly proven that they caught it on a porn set just because they say so. I'm not saying it's impossible, but in order for it to be presented as fact that she did there needs to be some actual corroborating evidence.Horrorshowj (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Corroborating evidence" is unclear and is actually just another way of saying "I don't want this information on the web-page because I am opposed to it." As I stated before, the information should be on the page, particularly since it is biographical information that the person about whom the biography was written has stated publicly, both in the Google Video and under testimony during Charles Calderon's proposal of the porn tax bill before the California State Assembly. I am not deleting any of your information, but you are deleting mine. If you don't approve of facts that have been stated by an individual - and they are biographical facts - then you may create an entire separate section on Lubben on this webpage. Please refrain from deleting sources and citations. --Veritas, Semper 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Find an official transcript of the testimony and then put it in. Horrorshowj has a duty to remove controversial assertions under WP:BLP. You are edit warring by continuing to reinstate these assertions without a reliable third-party source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it read something to the effect of "Lubben maintains that she became infected Herpes as a result of performing in adult movies." there wouldn't be any issue, as that is easily proven to be fact. "Lubben became infected with Herpes as a result of performing in adult movies." however is not something that is easily proven as fact. There is a huge difference between the two statements.Horrorshowj (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it now appears I am fighting against two deceivers instead of just a single one. So the difference between her "maintaining" that she contracted herpes from adult filming activities and her "actually" contracting herpes from adult filming activities is "huge"? Is it in fact that huge, or is simply perceived by you to be huge? Is it honestly or dishonestly perceived by you to be huge? Is it honestly perceived by you to be small, but dishonestly communicated by you to the public to be huge? Your reasoning skills are mediocre, which is why you should stick to using Wikipedia as a "free-speech" (read propaganda) tool and refrain from actually publishing anything on paper that may be handed down to future generations, considering that anyone would do the world the disservice of actually publishing anything produced by you. --Veritas, Semper 21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagank (talk • contribs)

Your comments about people's reasoning skills will not be tolorated. Please understand that our standards for biographies for living people override all other rules, so regarless of whether or not the public thinks it's a small issue. Our standards and policies make details about a person's sexual health a very big deal. What makes the wording different is that there was history that would make it doubtful where she contracted the disease. All we can say is that Lubben stated (or in this case, maintain) that she contracted it during her career. It doesn't mean that she didn't, or that she did. However, a primary source is a weak source, and must only be used if it's not contentious, and this conversation makes it contentious. So unless there is a 3rd party source stating so, it won't be in the article. BTW, Horrorshowj, not everybody knows what BLP stands for, especially the new people. --w^{L<speak·check>} 03:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a third pornography industry advocate has joined this correspondence, which increases the number of participants but actually decreases its importance in my affairs, as well as the relevance of Wikipedia in important matters regarding the health of our society (it is lamentably our society... I only wish I could call it your society). But I may call Wikipedia your propaganda tool, since you are apparently the one who has been granted authority to tolerate certain comments which you interpret as being unbiased and to crassly delete other information which you interpret as being biased. If you really want to avoid bias, just casually investigate the history of your pornography supporting friend Horrorshow, who, not surprisingly, has been busy editing other articles that clearly promote the pornography industry. Wikipedia: a free speech tool for the people or a propaganda tool for a certain sector of the population which seeks to control people's opinions on matters that adversely affect their mental health? Quite a question to ponder. But my point on bias is that every author is biased. Just because Wikipedia can be edited by supposedly anybody (in theory it can be, but in reality it is clearly controlled by certain well-organized individuals who have made Wikipediaing their vocations), does not make Wikipedia an unbiased source of information. The author of this webpage, who clearly has an interest in displaying information that promotes the pornography industry in the United States, is biased. His or her comments on Lubben's religious views clearly betray that sentiment, as do the history of his or her activities on Wikipedia. And you don't need to tolerate anything from me any longer, because I will stop now... or maybe I won't, I guess it depends on just how much time I'm willing to waste communicating with you. This is becoming Dostoevskian, Underground Man... give it a read sometime... it might help you. But you and I both know where the truth lies in this matter. There is no need for an arbitrator, who, again, would be mistakenly be labeled an unbiased third party. But I will fight on, using other, more effective means.--Veritas, Semper 04:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indents)I am not a pornography advocate, I told you that your personal attacks and name calling will not be tolorated, and I meant it. This no longer has anything to do with what is on the article, but how you interact with us. Our edits are strictly on a policy basis, however you continue to be disruptive. There are a lot of things that we want to have on Wikipedia, but our rules do not allow it. But we grit our teeth and accept it. We are not a free speech tool, we are not a propoganda tool. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of things sourced from a third party. If you want to use sources that are not third, you can go to Wikinfo and write an article there.-w^{L<speak·check>}

This group really doesn't have any notability separate from that of Shelley Lubben. It would probably be best to simply merge that article into this one and have "Pink Cross Foundation" redirect to this article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I agree. I started to write out my reasoning, but then noticed it was just the same reasons as stated above. Cind.amuse 00:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't think of a better argument. Dismas|^(talk) 03:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pink Cross Foundation is a 501(c)(3) publicly supported charity made up of a Board of Directors and volunteers who are clearly visible online and in the activities of Pink Cross, even globally. For example, Pink Cross Foundation has worked with AIDS Healthcare Foundation to address HIV in the adult film industry. Pink Cross also works closely with Los Angeles County of Department of Public Health, University of California Los Angeles and CalOSHA as well as other government agencies to enforce current safety and health laws in the adult film industry. Pink Cross Foundation has a sister-charity in Slovak, Republic at www.thepinkross.sk. All of these examples are clearly seen online and in the news. Pink Cross Foundation also has a separate web site and separate functions from Ms. Lubben's web site such as online help forums, chat rooms, donation page and action tips for members.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TQ (talk • contribs)
• Oppose Although Shelley Lubben is the main driver and force behind Pink Cross, it is a full-fledged organisation that has its own notability. Centrepull (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the org have its own notability? Existence isn't innately notable.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability of the organization is not established independent of the founder. Cind.amuse 06:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Our group experienced direct contact with that organization (The Pink Cross) through two ladies by the name of Jan and Jenny - we also heard about them through writings of a woman by the name of Chaplin Garris, and not initially through the personage of Shelley Lubben. However, I will discuss my reasoning since it's important for the editorship to decide based on facts. I have to question the validity of 'combining' the two articles because they aren't the same, one discusses a unique personage, the other discusses a civic, albeit, religious non-profit. Scholastically, it doesn't make sense and defies basic logic, so opposed. appscholar.appscholar 13:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— appscholar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Comment. First off, welcome to Wikipedia! April (Garris), Jan, and Jenny all work directly with Shelley. The organization has done nothing apart from Shelley. Independent notability has not been established. Cind.amuse 11:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support little notability independent from Lubben. Almost anyone can meet the 501(c)3 requirements for a NPO. Just as not all for-profit businesses pass notability, neither should all non-profits. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]