Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Barron (pornographic actor)

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 keep. No particular consensus has arisen to delete this article, and it certainly seems implied that the awards listed are sufficiently prominent to warrant inclusion. The acrimonious wider discussion about the sourcing of articles in this area does not seem to have reached any particularly decisive conclusion, but in this particular case there is clearly insufficient support for deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 14:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Barron (pornographic actor)

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

As there has been a sustained attempt to source this article, and the sources supplied have been repeatedly deleted for Dave Awards and Gay Erotic Video Awards (both being reliant on the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source), there seems little prospect of appropriate sources being found in the near future. Consequently the article fails to meet WP:PORNBIO as currently stated. As the creator of the article, I would appreciate a discussion in order to set a precedent for this topic so that I do not waste future effort creating articles or stubs likely to be deleted or the center of lengthy dispute over interpretation of the sourcing and notability policies. Ash (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This nomination seems POINTY, especially with the Dave awards. I assume that these awards do exist and that the person did win it. The problem is that no one has been able to verify whether the 1996 Adam Gay Video Directory includes listing the awards prior to 1994. Supposedly, the 1994 awards was listed in the directory while prior years were listed in the Advocate. Someone out there must have a subscription to a literary database that includes that magazine to confirm rather than using a vendor site. I have academic subscriptions to several databases but have no idea which one may include this magazine. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention was not pointy. The article was left unsourced with even the most high level reference to AGVD being deleted (diff). In that state any BLP should be speedy deleted, PRODded or raised to AfD, this article has no reason to be an exception and AfD gives the opportunity for wide discussion. Ash (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources added. Sadly I think Ash has too much confidence that just because the AfD started a misguided admin won't delete a porn bio anyway. We've seen quite a few of these articles speedied when restoring and citing content was all that was needed. In any case I too feel that the AfDing wasn't helpful so would support closing if nom withdraws. -- Banjeboi 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument put forward from Morbidthoughts was that the AGVD citation was not verified. This same citation has been re-added. I see no reason to keep this AfD open if the source has now been verified to his/her satisfaction. Ash (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's verifiable to a reliable source. No one is even suggesting the content is untrue or misrepresented just that the original weblink to the mirror site had to go, and it has been replaced with the original source so it should be fine. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So did anybody actually confirm that the 1993 awards winner is in the directory. Otherwise, my dispute still stands despite banjeboi's reinstatement of the citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have suggested an acceptable way forward on my talkpage which sounds great, if that doesn't work all we're resolving is how to represent content, which is not disputed and has a reliable source(s) accurately. One way or another we should be able to fix it. -- Banjeboi 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, WP:POINT violation, forum shopping. Full discussion of the relevant issues is ongoing at Wikipedia:An/i#Fraudulent_referencing; User:Ash's description of the dispute here is far from accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not forum shopping as this AFD was raised for an article with no sources to demonstrate notability as per PORNBIO. The ANI you raised was a claim that the citations I have added to several articles were added with intent to defraud. This AFD is about the article meeting notability, the ANI you raised was to request admin action against me. ANI would not be the right forum to either reach a consensus on the suitability of sources (RSN would be the correct forum) and ANI is neither the place to reach a conclusion as to the notability or potential for short-term improvement of this particular article. Ash (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IF the awards listed are actually noteworthy. Otherwise, delete. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and "Keep" per JBsupreme ONLY if the awards listed are actually noteworthy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The awards are noteworthy, the only point was that we need to clean-up the sourcing or one remaining award which is in process. -- Banjeboi 10:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be kept if the Gay Erotic Video Award wins have been verified, but the Dave Awards aren't notable enough to count towards PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This hobby horse again? Please stop making this misleading comment in every relevant AfD. PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards." The Dave Awards are part of List of gay pornography awards which is in the first category named as an example category. If you want to change the PORNBIO definition then use the normal process. As you have taken part in the fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page of PORNBIO on this point, it is hard to understand why you are not aware of the facts. It appears that when it suits you, you argue for uncompromising hard-line implementation of PORNBIO as a means to delete gay pornography articles, but when PORNBIO can be used to keep an article, you immediately switch to ignoring it and prefer your personal opinion instead and apply soft arguments such as "not notable enough".
- Yes I did raise this nomination but your interpretation of PORNBIO is transparently partial. Ash (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the Dave Awards are considered notable, He was the gay porn authority in the US for several years (late 1980s-early 1990s) providing independent and reliable reviews in Advocate Men. If they were called the "Advocate Men Awards" this would be a non-issue. We are in process of getting all his awards confirmed to ensure we have them all and correctly attributed to whichever reliable sources they are in. -- Banjeboi 12:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of notable awards. Dream Focus 15:28, 19 March 2010 (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.