Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Diesel

Shane Diesel

Note: nominator/creator this AfD (User:Macreep) is sock-puppet of blocked user:Redban, confirmed by checkuser here. Generally, the page should be closed because it was created illegally. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Shane Diesel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I think this article subject doesn't pass the pornstar biography guideline without any award wins. Whether he passes GNG or not is a little less obvious. The article uses mostly press releases and such from avn and xbiz. Any thoughts? Macreep (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) @ 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment : Wikipedia a little slow these days? lol Macreep (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet

• Keep - I believe he passes the GNG. Multiple articles from both AVN and XBIZ plus the feature in Cosmo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

— Morbidthoughts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside pornography topics.

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO, and fluffing by the promotional trade press does not establish notability per GNG. Pax 07:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO. Insufficient independent reliable sourcing to satisfy the GNG (references are either industry PR or likely kayfabe). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources like AVN, XBIZ, and Cosmopolitan to satisfy the WP:GNG. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

— Rebecca1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside pornography topics.

The trade press are not independent RS. Discounting industry promotion, the single Cosmopolitan piece is not "enough" independent RS to satisfy GNG. Pax 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pax, actual AVN and XBIZ articles written by the magazines journalists are reliable sources. They do publish press releases as well, but they make sure to label them as "Company News" or "Company Press". This article does not cite any press releases. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Claiming AVN and XBIZ magazines are RS does not actually make them RS. See this discussion and keep in mind for the following crucial context: The plumber magazine referred to in the discussion is one that is for plumbers - i.e., it's not promotional media delivered to people with leaking sinks. (Such a publication might be RS; note that it is not automatically so - it must be independent.) In contrast to that example, the adult industry's "trade" magazines are explicitly marketing vehicles tailored to give the potential customer a slight taste of the action. They are not independent, although they may (and I would argue do) pretend to be. Your position essentially amounts to demanding that de facto advertizing be considered RS. Pax 05:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of the small number of references that aren't press releases or repackaged PR, there are so many contradictions, even in supposedly direct statements by the article subject, that none of them can be established as reliable, and we can't have BLPs without reliable sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, can you actually show us these discrepancies you claim to have found in the article's sources? Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction In the Cosmopolitian article, Shane says he entered the industry after meeting a couple at a party and they then introduced him to some insiders running some internet pornography sites. But in Papi Chulo blog, he says he and Lisa Sparxx's husband shot him in a small internet scene and then later he answered an ad for Playboy or Hustler that burst him into the scene. In the XBiz article, they quote Shane Diesel saying he broke in the industry by answering some ad for "Big Cock Contest" and then later he met "a girl online named Lisa Sparks" who shot him in a photo shoot (Remember, the Cosmo article say he met her at a party, here it says online, and the Papi Chulo article says it was a gonzo scene, not a photo shoot). Basically in one article, he shot a scene with Lisa Sparks and her husband after meeting her at a party. In another article he meets her online AFTER winning some contest and shoots a photo op (not a scene) for her. In another article he meets her BEFORE he answer some Playboy or Hustler ad. Just click on the first 3 links in the article page to see these Macreep (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)confirmed sockpuppet

I'm going to put some quotes --- In Papi Chulo blog he say "Initially I answered an ad for Lisa Sparxxx's website.She liked well hung Black guys. Lisa and hubby came over and we did a small internet scene. Now as far as my big break, I answered an ad in Hustler or Playboy for the Big Cock Society. They fly in guys that are winners for the month to do a photo shoot. It was a solo masturbation shoot." In Cosmo, Shane says "When I was 39, I went to a party and there was this couple there. We started talking, and they told me they were looking for someone to do some web work. Gonzo" adult stuff." In XBiz, he says, "there was an ad for a 'Big Cock Contest' in Miami. I emailed them some pictures, and I won the February 2003 contest. They flew me out and paid me a lot of money. From there, it kind of snowballed. A lot of people were asking me about doing porn, and I met a girl online named Lisa Sparks, who wanted to do a photo shoot with me." Macreep (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet restored, since this is an accurate summary and I'll adopt it rather than retyping it (TBBW)

The inconsistencies demonstrate the subject's memory is unreliable and does not measure the reliability of the sources. If they quote his "misremembering", their reliability is based on the accuracy of the quote, not the veracity of the statement. Kayfabe is not a reason to discredit the notability of the subjects or the sources that cover them either considering we have articles on wrestlers focusing on their fictional personas and storylines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

But we're not dealing with a fictional character/persona here, as is involved in wrestling. We're dealing with a falsified biography presented as fact. That's simply not suitable for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Such "inconsistencies", if less charitably concluded to be "cleaning up one's background" or even "lying like a common politician", drag one into the direction of contemplating WP:ADMASQ. Pax 05:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - per argument above. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 19:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What unaddressed argument above do you consider to be valid? Pax 05:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way. You have ban on nominating articles for deletion and topic ban (pages "about or related to pornography"). This page is /articles for deletion and also related to pornography - so, you break the rules. Also, very interesting is new account: User:Macreep (nominator), probably sock-puppet (minimum contribution, new account, fluent skill of inserting articles to remove...). Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not editing a pornography-related article; this is a discussion. (Similarly, I am not restricted from participating on the talk pages of pornography-related articles...not that I have bothered, mind you.) So, nice try, but no dice. Pax 06:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you wrong. This page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and you vote for delection (+ you are the most! active in the discussion for delete this article). And also, page for delection is Shane Diesel, pornographic actor - so, this is 100% related to pornography. You break the rules. It is still a matter of sock-puppets, require CheckUser intervention. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted...." - BzzT! Thanks for playing. (There is no "topic ban", btw; you need to read that a little more carefully.) Pax 15:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a topic ban - pages related! to pornography, Shane Diesel is pornography actor, so - 100% related to pornography. You break judgment. You get double topic ban for mass create pages AfD for remove pornography articles. Currently, you voted, and lead very active discuss for removal of the pornography article, stems from the fact that you are incapable of reform - the lack of any desire to improve behavior. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a "topic ban"; the judgment, which you yourself linked to, explicitly stated "temporary ban on editing articles about or related to pornography." The box in the upper-right: that's the judgment. The word "page" does not appear; nor does the word "topic", or "broadly construed" or any of that other jazz often seen in harsher administrative judgments. Stop mangling it in a base attempt to shut up the opposition and detract attention from the merits of this article under discussion. Pax 08:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Folks stop edit war about the topic ban, the temporary ban or whatever. The closer will take care of the issue, otherwise if you feel a clarification is so urgent then raise the issue in the proper places, not here. Cavarrone 08:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Раціональне анархіст / Pax, we should ask the administrator in this matter. It is obvious that you have topic ban - "about or related to pornography", this page is relate to pornography because involves the removal of pornographic actor. Do not have a right to be here to edit, discuss, vote. You broke the ban. Do not make excuses for the word of "temporary", yes - your topic ban is temporary (30 days from 19 January) but 11 February [1] is not end of 30 days, you have still one week ban. Also, you are incapable of reform - the lack of any desire to improve behavior - you was punished for edits to the removal of pornographic pages and... continue doing the same thing. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Deliberately deceptive, purposefully disruptive. Subtropical-man, you know perfectly well that Pax's topic ban extended only to AFD nominations, not participating in AFD discussions, and to (quite specifically) "articles" about pornography, not discussions or other pages outside articlespace. You participated in the pertinent ANI discussion; you had the opportunity to propose a broader ban; and you didn't. It's outright abusive for you to pretend that the ban extends beyond its quite clear language, just as the phony SPI accusations you brought against Pax were abusive. Your actions bring your honesty and competence into question. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, please stop personal attack [2][3] and respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You do not understand something in my action? You can ask.

• why I created a notification of SPI? Because user Раціональне анархіст aka Pax and Redban and its sockpuppets has very similar behavior, on several levels. Not just me this noticed. SPI came out well, because the sockpuppet of Redban caught.
• why drew attention to the topic ban? because (still) I think that topic ban has been broken, topic ban is "about or related to pornography", this page AfD is relate to pornography because involves the removal of pornographic actor. For me is simple: "about or related to pornography" and AfD about pornographic actor, so.

let's finish this topic. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You're accusing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz of bad faith and personal attacks when those exact things constitute the sum total entirety of your commentary during this AfD hijacking? Look in the mirror. Pax 01:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Decent coverage in mainstream media for a male porn star. The fact that the guy holds down a mainstream job in the airline industry is not only hilariously interesting, but makes him stand out amongst his peers. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Where are the multiple independent mainstream media pieces which would comprise the necessary "decent coverage" for notability? How is this snowflake especially that much more special than the other run-of-the-mill porn actors with no award wins and no RS who don't make the cut? Pax 05:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan magazine is fairly significant endorsement plus the interview on the AskMen.com website in the "Money" advice section is sufficient for me. I'm taking into consideration how difficult it is for an adult film actor to get any mainstream press that is not essentially tabloid in nature. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per arguments above from wolfowitz and pax, this article is based on super weak RS for a BLP article. Regardless of the distracting muss and fuss about who is banned from what and for however long, Id say FOCUSING ON THE ARTICLE, it's a strong DELETE. Shark310 18:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)