Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sid Deuce: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:23, 24 July 2011

Sid Deuce

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other relevant SNG. No award noms, no mainstream appearances reported; no GNews hits, no nontrivial GBooks hits (passing mentions). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep digital coverage is pretty limited, but i suspect most of it was done in the print days. Especially when it says: Performer Credits: 189 Titles; Director Credits: 21 Titles. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. By well-established consensus, the number of credits a subject may report is not sufficient to demonstrate notability; "prolific" was once a WP:PORNBIO standard, but was removed without great controversy. The subject was active in the industry from 1995-2003, well beyond the purely print era., and a great many contemporaries have demonstrated notability with adequate coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The AfD creator is the only major contributor in the field of pr0n, and his opinions should be accepted as consensus without debate. Also, articles on this sort of person only encourage this sort of behavior. As the Shrine of the Sum of Human Knowledge, Wikipedia should be in the business of uplifting humanity, not dragging it down in the gutter. Dekkappai (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. By that argument, should we delete Adolf Hitler too? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Stuart, if some guy is thinking about committing genocide, mass-murder, or even just a little a massacre in order to get himself an article at Wikipedia, and he then becomes aware of our Deletion policies-- BLP1E in particular would remove such an article-- and because of that knowledge of our strict editing guidelines then decides not to commit this atrocity, I would say we as Wikipedians, could hold our heads up proudly. Dekkappai (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Delete''' The AfD creator is the only major contributor in the field of pr0n, and his opinions should be accepted as consensus without debate. Also, articles on this sort of person only encourage this sort of behavior. As the Shrine of the Sum of Human Knowledge, Wikipedia should be in the business of ''uplifting'' humanity, not dragging it down in the gutter. [[User:Dekkappai|Dekkappai]] ([[User talk:Dekkappai|talk]]) 02:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 **'''Comment'''. By that argument, should we delete [[Adolf Hitler]] too? [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 03:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
+***'''Reply''' Stuart, if some guy is thinking about committing genocide, mass-murder, or even just a little a massacre in order to get himself an article at Wikipedia, and he then becomes aware of our Deletion policies-- BLP1E in particular would remove such an article-- and because of that knowledge of our strict editing guidelines then decides ''not'' to commit this atrocity, I would say we as Wikipedians, could hold our heads up proudly. [[User:Dekkappai|Dekkappai]] ([[User talk:Dekkappai|talk]]) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)