Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Hanson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hanson

[edit]
Johnny Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An anonymous editor has had a pattern of deleting relevant information from notable porn actors articles and then submitting them for speedy deletion. Although one of them had won an award, and both of them had received quite a bit of media attention, their authors didn't understand the importance of citing sources, and both were summarily deleted. I don't know much about this subject, although as he was a Falcon exclusive in 1995, I am sure he received quite a bit of media in his day (Falcon has been the gay equivalent of Vivid), I don't have immediate access to the sources to support the information on the article, although I assume it does exist. As I'm sure the anonymous editor is going to keep resubmitting this article for speedy deletion, I would much prefer to have an actual discussion than a much more quick and (in my opinion) fallible process. I am of the opinion that this subject is notable under WP:BIO's first criterion, "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I have listed a couple of such sources as part of the references in the article, but it would take much more time for me to dig up the sources from his main heyday than a speedy delete process would allow, not to mention gay pride is this weekend, so I'm probably not going to be on wikipedia much. Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:PORNBIO lists number of titles as a non-entity as far as notability is concerned, but if you are looking at the total amount of work he has done, also look at other work he has done besides videos, i.e. magazines he has been in, etc. Ryan Idol a very notable porn actor was only in 10 videos, but managed to make a major contribution in that amount of time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SneakyTodd (talk • contribs) 04:52, June 23, 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. WP:PORNBIO did have specific movie count criteria for a time (as a sign of prolificness) but they got pulled out because they worked only for currently-produced heterosexual porn. Genres such as gay porn, porn from before the 90s and some foreign porn (such as Japanese AV idols) were poorly served by having numbers. Tabercil 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see how a high porn movie count would not lead to notability, but I dont see the inverse being true Corpx 17:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linda Lovelace. Her entry at IAFD lists only 18 films, 8 of which are compilations of her scenes from other films. As I said, film count and notability do not go together.
I don' see what's wrong with that--it is reasonable to obtain a community opinion in instances which are known to be disputed. DGG 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO, as per Edison. Disagree with DGG: to nominate articles for deletion only to argue for keeping them is to manipulate the deletion process in order to achieve a desired end; to do so does violence to the procedures established by Wikipedia. Disagree with SneakyTodd: referring to the speedy deletion process as fallible both maligns it and insults the editors who vote in favor of deletion under that process; and, to compare Johnny Hanson to Ryan Idol is like comparing Dan Quayle to Jack Kennedy. Hanson is no Ryan Idol. Johnny Hanson has done nothing noteworthy, he does not warrant an article, and his article should be deleted. 72.68.112.59 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kennedy/Quayle comparison you thought up is perhaps apt. Although Quayle is a notable politician, he has nothing on Kennedy. Hanson is not Ryan Idol, but he is notable enough that the GayVN, a print magazine took up valuable space for an article about Hanson's return to porn; he is notable enough to be placed in front of Chad Hunt on the box; and he is notable enough that there will be plenty of people wanting to look up information about him. Having an article with some basic information would be nice. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 09:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at his profile, he is a gay guy born in '68 or '69. He is almost certainly familiar with the subjects earlier work (gay guys tend to be more familiar with porn stars than straight guys, especially with Falcon exclusives), and probably 'voted' accordingly. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 09:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The speedy deletion process is fallible, but so is the AfD process. (Both are run by humans, and AFAIK nothing run by humans is quite infallible.) Pretty much all admins try in good faith to do a proper job when checking speedy tags. Removing key relevant info and then tagging for speedy deletion is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and not far short of vandalism, but removing unsourced info because it is unsourced, and then tagging because what is left qualified for speedy deletion, in the good faith belief that the article is unlikely to be legit is reasonable, if the article actually fits one of the speedy criteria. Using AfD to get a sort of declarative judgment that an article should be kept is at best unusual, and IMO not generally a good idea. Starting a discussion on the article's talk page would be better, as deleting admins are supposed to look at the talk page. (They ought to look at the history too, but that is less certain). DES (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current sources appear to be two blogs, one directory that confirms that the subject did appear in a particular issue of a particular magazine, but says nothing else, including no comments on how significant or unusual this appearance was, and one profile on what seems to be a fan site. This is the closest thing to an independent reliable source now cited, and what does it say? "He was hailed as the next big thing by Falcon, but he didn't really live up to the billing...." and "he later tried to break into the legitimate entertainment business as a singer and actor before returning to XXX in 2007..." (emphasis added). That hardly establishes his notability, unless all actors who appear in multiple released porn films are notable. Weak delete unless more or better sources are found. DES (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question has been deleting more than just unsourced info; he has claimed that some sourced statements are irrelevant, or has even gone so far as to delete references to mistitled movies (e.g. Dangerous Liaisons instead of "Michael Lucas's Dangerous Liaisons - this editor should be aware of Michael Lucas's version, as he has edited that article as well). The AfD process is also fallible, but is less so because more people are putting in their input instead of relying on one person to make a judgment on whether or not something is notable. Gay porn in particular is a tricky subject as most actors perform in relatively few movies and are still talked about for a long time after they have finished, but when someone unfamiliar with the industry looks at the actor, it often appears like self-promotion and non-notable. An example of the fallacy of speedy deletion of notable gay porn related subjects via an administrator being unfamiliar with the subject would be the speedy deletion of Falcon Studios for sounding like advertising, which is probably the gay porn studio with the most name recognition in the world (Ask any gay guy what Falcon Studios is, and there is at least a 99% chance they will know who they are). Also, when somebody is trying to help out Wikipedia by adding information, there is a good chance that they will not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and might not know how to source the information that they have. WP:BIO only states that contentious unsourced material be removed vigorously. Much of the information that has been deleted from these articles is not particularly contentious, and, in my opinion should be tagged to allow editors to find better sources. Finally, there was discussion on the articles that were speedy deleted, I can't tell whether or not the deleting admin paid attention to them or not, regardless, unless there is not claim of notability at all, lack of notability should in general be determined by consensus rather than a single admin. This is especially true for articles where there are more than one author that have contributed to creating the article.
As far as this particular subject is concerned, one of the blog links was a reprint of a GayVN magazine "innerview" with Johnny Hanson. GayVN does at most 1 such interview per month. I didn't have the magazine in hand to confirm the blog post, but have just recently found it, and will adjust the source; it was from the March issue.-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 03:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnny_Hanson&oldid=1071020517"