Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Volny

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. JForget 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Volny[edit]

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

Gay porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Awards section now added, he passes PORNBIO. There is an overwhelming bias on Wikipedia for gay pornography actors to allow American actors but not European actors as the US porn-related awards are well documented but there are few such notable awards in common use across Europe. Consequently PORNBIO itself tends to encourage rapid deletion of such BLPs, a somewhat less hard-line approach may be appropriate for non-US BLPs with plenty of grace time considered for promoting improvement of these articles before taking to deletion. In this particular case a search for Volny on AVN.com immediately shows his award wins, so not enough effort to follow the guidance of WP:BEFORE was applied by the nominator before raising this AfD. Ash (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems to me that the rational behind this nomination is summed up in first three words. I'm requesting that ~~Epbr123~~ nominators be required to put more effort into their nominations and not just saying "fails gng, fails pornbio" as I've seen dozens of times in the past. I would like to see an argument as to how BIO is either met or failed by a neutral party before I vote on this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok. Epbr123 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ash's first sentence. Epbr123 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm curious about assumption of the European Gay Porn Awards as a notable award. The article itself was created very recently and offers little detail. They appear to have been short-lived and as this source notes the sponsorship is unclear. I'm sure there are many such awards that we would not consider notable - why this one? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The awards do have some coverage, eg. [1], [2], [3]. Epbr123 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, the European Gay Porn Awards is just as notable in Europe as the AVN_Awards are in America- then they should be respected as a reliable source...especially given the difficulty in finding unbiased sources for Porn Bios' inclusion in Wikipedia. But I'm getting ahead of myself...This is a firm "keep" if only because this performer has won multiple awards, has more than a dozen reliable citations which are NOT under question, and is most unquestionably notable. The article passes WP:PORNBIO. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 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.