Talk:Arabelle Raphael

Nationality, reliable sources

The general consensus per the biographies of living persons noticeboard seems to be to omit the subject's nationality until we have direct confirmation from a reliable source.

The most recent discussion of Fleshbot at the reliable sources noticeboard found it to be an unreliable source due to a commercial conflict of interest (see WP:VENDOR). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Height in infobox

I've removed the "height" parameter from the {{Infobox person}} template since it seemed like random trivia unrelated to the subject's notability. The only citations were to primary sources in the form of a couple of YouTube videos, making the information unduly weighted in the lead section. Raphael is neither a Pokémon nor an Olympic athlete; why do we care about her physical statistics? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf if a persons' height was regarded as "random trivia unrelated to the subject's notability" then the parameter would not exist in the first place under infobox person. Your reasoning in the edit summary was "Removing "height" parameter as random trivia – she's not a pro basketball player, why do we care?". A sportsperson would come under Template:Infobox sportsperson. The height parameter still exists under the standard Template:Infobox person for a reason. Information is not required to be related to a subject's notability to be included. Primary sources can be used for citations and are fine under these circumstances, as its the person both verbally stating and physically demonstrating their own personal height. What people care about is going to differ from person to person. Helper201 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

There are non–sportspeople notable for their height such as Robert Wadlow. For most biographical subjects however, their height is totally irrelevant to their notability. Just because the parameter exists doesn't mean it has to be used on every article. Details in the infobox should be relevant to notability, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

She is short but not in a way that is particularly notable, like it would be for Joanna Angel or Madison Ivy among other examples. Trillfendi (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. Helper201 (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This is also not excessive stats, nor a collection of information. Helper201 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Others apparently disagree. MOS:BIO mentions notability multiple times as a criterion for deciding what to include, especially in the lead section. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

NNC is not an opinion and this is nowhere near excessive. Its literally a few characters of information, supported by two sources, one of which gives a clear demonstration. There is no notability criteria for content within articles, that is a clear fact and I've provided a dedicated link to that above. The infobox is also not the lead. Helper201 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The infobox is literally the first thing in the lead section. Notability is certainly a concern; read MOS:BIO. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The infobox is apart from the lead, in its own box, as it were. Please show me the specific point to MOS:BIO, as I see nothing relevant to the inclusion of a person's height. Helper201 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The infobox is literally displayed immediately after the first paragraph of the lead section (in mobile view). The purpose of the infobox is to summarize the key facts appearing in the article. Raphael's height is simply not a key fact about her. Notability is mentioned multiple times as a criterion at MOS:BIO, which is meant to be a guideline, not an exhaustive list of what not to do. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says "It is usually displayed in the top right of an article, next to the lead section in the desktop version of Wikipedia, or after the first paragraph of the lead in the mobile version." Note, "next to the lead section", not in the lead section. Whereas its worded different for mobile, so there is no clear consistency here.

Her height being a key fact is debatable. In the industry she is known for physical appearance is usually a primary part of reputation and notability. Can we please at least compromise to having it in the personal life section? Helper201 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Physical appearance is usually a primary part of reputation – while that may be true, Wikipedia exists to summarize accepted knowledge, not reflect the priorities of a given industry. I understand key facts to refer to facts substantiated by independent, reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT. A podcast appearance and social media post by Raphael are not independent of her. Feel free to present reliable sources that establish Raphael's height as important to her notability. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Its no less notable than her sexuality, birth place, or birth year, which are all established on the page. I'm not saying we have to state everything. I'm hardly trying to add a large degree of information. This is actually very in-keeping with WP:WEIGHT as its not giving it lead prominence but placing it mid-article. I'm also talking about a single line of information, which is far from undue weight. I don't see any reason or proposition as to why the information proposed would in any way be inaccurate. Compromise is an important value to Wikipedia and I'd kindly ask that we please work towards that. Helper201 (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Accuracy is not the issue here. Due weight means representing the views of reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. According to What Wikipedia is not, information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. Whether it's one line or one hundred is irrelevant.

I'm fine with using an WP:ABOUTSELF source for Raphael's sexual orientation, which is often an important part of one's identity. A person's height, on the other hand, is utterly trivial information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia unless mentioned by a reliable, independent source. Feel free to present any such sources here. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

"Utterly trivial information" to you perhaps, others would regard sexuality or birth place as such and this not. This is where your personal viewpoint comes in and takes over from policy. I have compromised on my end by rescinding my appeal for this information in the infobox. I think inclusion as a one-liner elsewhere in the article is completely in-keeping with proportionality. I'd also like to note that you edited the page and kept this when it was first cited in the infobox. It was only once I added a second source you for some reason sought to remove this information. Helper201 (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to your own opinion, but to achieve consensus for inclusion you have to actually persuade others. Raphael's place of birth is not comparable since we we have confirmation from KQED that she emigrated from France at a young age. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

So just because something is "confirmed" (in your eyes) via a third-party source that makes it notable? I've yet to see any reason why height does not fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. This just seems like selectively eliminating information based on personal preference. Helper201 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The source literally says, Raphael emigrated to the Bay Area from France with her parents when she was five. That certainly makes the country of birth more relevant. If selectively omitting some ABOUTSELF information is a problem, feel free to remove sexual orientation from § Personal life as well. I don't have a strong opinion about it either way. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Date of birth

I've provided two different sources for this claim. One is from a notable recognised production company and film studio, the other I don't see any evidence that it is "AI-generated". Sources online all seem very consistent on this date too. Helper201 (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not the same as reliability. Pornography studios exist to sell a fantasy, not reality. WP:VENDOR states specifically that e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available.

Raphael's official website is located at arabelleraphael.com. The source you cited, arabelle-raphael.com, actually has three separate biological profiles on different pages, all apparently LLM-generated, while the main page has a big button that takes users to streaming platform FapHouse. The website is a clear attempt to redirect web traffic from the subject herself to a commercial entity.

Either way, WP:DOB is clear that full dates of birth should only be included if widely published by reliable sources. If there are reliable sources online, feel free to present them. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"Pornography studios exist to sell a fantasy, not reality.", that does not inherently make information about performers on studio websites unreliable. There's nothing on Wikipedia saying pornographic production companies or film studios are unreliable sources. "Should be replaced if available" does not equal "cannot be used". Helper201 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree about the reliability of porn studios when it comes to biographical details; their entire business is built on illusion. Reliable sources on Wikipedia are defined as those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources relating to claims about living persons must meet extra scrutiny. Widely published by reliable sources also implies multiple reliable sources that are widely published, not just a random website for a niche audience. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)