Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dato Foland

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. The only argument presented against deletion is that it makes Putin stronger, but that's not an argument in Wikipedia policy yet, for better or for worse. Reliable sourcing is lacking, and apparently the subject does not meet the relevant guidelines. If reliable sourcing is lacking because of how Russia deals with gay porn, that's sad and unjust, but it is not something that we can fix. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dato Foland[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a porn actor, with no significant claim of notability under WP:PORNBIO and no substantive reliable source coverage. The only other thing here is that he placed Top 12 in a gay male beauty pageant in 2009, but that pageant is one where we don't even have articles about any of its winners, let alone conferring notability on anybody just for competing in it and not winning -- and the only source for that claim is a blurb, not substantive coverage. Nothing here is enough to justify an encyclopedia article at this time, and the sourcing isn't even close to getting him over WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The LGBT world is rather small, and in Russia its even smaller. Just because an average Joe here may not have heard of Foland does not make him insignificant. When Foland represented Russia in the 2009 contest, he received coverage from mainstream news publications and television (i.e. Interfax, NTV), which continued in the LGBT realm well after the 2009 Mr Gay Europe and 2010 Mr Gay World contests ended (i.e featuring on the cover of Kvir in 2014). Are these equivalents of the New York Times and Miss World? Certainly not, but they are significant in the smaller LGBT and regional context.
Given Russia's draconian state-sponsored repression of everything gay, it is difficult for such information to make its way out and then stay in circulation. If this article is given enough time, additional sources can be found, just as I did a few minutes ago. Foland meets at least WP:GNG. Every time an LGBT article is deleted on procedural IMMEDIATISM and DELETIONISM grounds, Vladimir Putin wins.--Damianmx (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm an openly gay editor who does everything I can to augment our coverage of LGBT topics, within the bounds of what and who can be properly sourced as meeting our inclusion standards — I actually maintain several lists of potential future article topics under WP:LGBT. Nice try with that "Vladimir Putin wins" hyperbole, but it's not a convincing argument if the proper sourcing isn't there to get the guy over WP:PORNBIO. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than adequate sourcing to get him over WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Whether a Canadian user finds Russian Interfax, NTV, and Kvir significant and reliable enough is a matter of POV. It must be noted that NTV is a nationally-broadcast television in Russia with an audience of over 100 million people.--Damianmx (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interfax citation is a 75-word blurb, which cannot help get him over GNG as it isn't substantive. The Kvir citation is to an article that he wrote, which cannot help get him over GNG as he's writing about himself. The Moscow Times citation is to the caption on a single photograph, which does not aid GNG. And broadcast content only counts toward GNG if that content is publicly archived somewhere that a Wikipedia reader can verify what it says — anybody can claim that anything was broadcast somewhere by somebody even if it really wasn't, so broadcast content only counts toward GNG if it's possible for us to verify what was broadcast when. But you haven't provided any link that enables us to verify what NTV aired, and even for a date you've just provided "2010" without specifying a day. This is not how you source a person properly — no matter how good the sources may be in theory, the content they published about him is entirely unsubstantive, self-written or unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dug up the "archived" version of the TV program in question and included the link, at the end of which you can see the video. But what good will that do, do you speak Russian? Or should we convene a panel of experts and Russian linguists to attest that I'm not a liar?! You know what Doubting Thomas...ahem Bearcat, its amazing that you are so adept at throwing wikipedia jargon and rules left and right, but for some reason you never even attempted to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. You've been fighting this article at conception, even though there are countless other articles about less significant gay personalities that have remained. You didn't even want to wait and see what else was out there, just to delete. This leads me to believe that this AfD is not about rules of notability, its about WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Damianmx (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about this represents any failure on my part to assume good faith, and what I like or don't like has nothing to do with anything either: lots of people I dislike qualify for Wikipedia articles, and lots of people I do like don't. There is, however, a real reason why our content and sourcing rules have to be strict: because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we're extremely vulnerable to misuse of one kind or another. People of no notability whatsoever try to create Wikipedia articles about themselves all the time because they erroneously think it's a free publicity platform, and bad-faith editors fill articles with attack content that's unduly biased against our article topics all the time — and the existence of a credible claim of notability, and even more importantly adequate reliable sourcing to properly support that claim of notability, are the only defense that we have against either of those things. Especially in a biography of a living person, whose life and reputation can be harmed if we get stuff wrong. The rules exist for real, important and critical reasons, and I'm not throwing them around just to be difficult or tendentious — I'm quoting the rules because Wikipedia's entire value as a project depends on their being followed properly.

And the Kvir article is written by him: the whole thing is a personal reminiscence, written in the first person, about his own experiences on porn shoots. Some sample quotes, from the body of the article: "Why Dato Foland? Dato - that's my real name"; "In the first film we shot the scene in the pool, and I drowned my new iPhone"; "I did not count how many movies filmed with me or how many scenes"; "It goes without saying that I am repelled by the body, and then look at what's in the heart, the head". Published by and written by are two different things: and Foland himself is the author of the piece. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've included the wrong link for Kvir, since Foland was definitely on the cover and that was not the same article. Not surprising, considering that I've wasted more time on this discussion than actually building an encyclopedia.--Damianmx (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews are primary not secondary sources so do not count towards notability. If if it did count its not enough on its own and everything else is not RS or not significant coverage. Damianmx please stick to discussing sources as that is what counts here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the sources, a Kvir article, is an interview. The NTV report contains excerpts of an interview with him but the feature overall falls well under Secondary sources, as it "contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts". He's a porn actor for god's sake, what kind of sources do you expect, some Harvard professor's dispassionate analysis of Foland's sex techniques and angles?! I'm afraid you're just looking for an excuse to support another deletionist admin. Meanwhile, thousands of comparable article with non-existent sourcing will remain because they are someone's pet project or because they were not created on the "wrong day" by the "wrong user"...--Damianmx (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG; Bearcat's analysis is solid. I don't even see any reliable source stating that the pageant contestant and the porn performer are the same person; even the IAFD listing doesn't make any connection. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2016 (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.