Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson (pornographic actor)

Dawson (pornographic actor)

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

Poorly sourced BLP of gay porn performer who fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Poorly sourced how? I see a number of good sources. Silverseren^C 08:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

Note: This user appears to be a single purpose account that goes around to AfD articles and votes delete with this same exact wording every time. Silverseren^C 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do the sources not establish notability? Silverseren^C 08:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Treasure Island’s Dawson Makes Hot Butt Magic" - NightCharm

"2008 Golden Dickie Award Nominations" - RadVideo

"Meat Packing" - Sex Herald

I found these three new sources and added them to the article. Silverseren^C 09:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has removed the sources listed above from the article, saying they are spam. Can another user please explain to me how they are spam? Silverseren^C 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is being needlessly tendentious and calling all of those spam seems unhelpful. They are correct though that our standards for external links (see WP:EL) likely don't support thos as external links. The best bet is to ensure each is considered a reliable source and use them as in-line citations instead. -- Banjeboi 11:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm with Silver; I have a hard time seeing what about this article is poorly sourced. RGTraynor 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doubtful notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what? Can you please be more specific? Silverseren^C 18:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I forgot to vote before. The sources that I have here and are already on the page are enough to establish notability, taking into account that porn actors do not have the same type of news as everyone else does (as you're not going to find news articles about them in mainstream newspapers.) Silverseren^C 18:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Within gay porn, barebacking is considered controversial. As such videos extolling the practice as Treasure Island does are seemingly shut out altogether. Ergo a new awards that recognize this genre have been created and apparently this is one of the big winners of the year. So it certainly meets PORNBIO and likely GNG as well. -- Banjeboi 11:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]