Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Danvers
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 keep. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
R. J. Danvers[edit]
- R. J. Danvers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Subject created article that fails WP:PORNBIO. BlueAzure (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. BlueAzure (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as NN with WP:COI. His only claims to notability are associations with award-winning films or people. (Of course, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.) All WP:RS coverage simply confirms that he is a new porn star. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RJ is notable because he made history when he became the youngest person to be signed to Raging Stallion Studios, a studio notorious for using older models. In the GayVN article, it clearly states he is the youngest to ever be signed to the long standing studio. Also, the notability guidelines state that a person "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature." RJ starred in Grunts, a groundbreaking and block buster feature, which broke industry sales records and became the top grossing film of the last 5 years. That is notable aside from his being the youngest to appear in a Raging Stallion Studios film. No reason whatsoever he should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.75.131 (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the GayVN article,[1] the main content is the Danvers' agent and the new studio talking up its latest star. In general, porn stars need objective acknowledgment of achievement, usually as an award nom or win. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for Grunts, can you cite a source independent of Danvers that credits him individually for the achievements this "groundbreaking" film? The cited sources don't even mention him. The general promo for the film mentions him in two scenes. Does an objective source say that he contributed a major part of this award-winning work? Also, most of those awards were for production. Without objective evidence, being in a possibly notable production does not transfer notability to everyone in it. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont understand. Independent of Danvers? He appeared in 5 scenes throughout the film. The notability guidelines state that the person had to appear in a ground breaking film. That was proven, with the amount of awards won, the budget, the profit of the film, and the cited article. I dont understand what else needs to be added. It almost seems unfair. I'm not sure what is not notable about his achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.75.131 (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isnt it also notable that EVERY SINGLE project he worked on in his first year in the industry was nominated for awards at the GayVN's? It seems to me that would be something difficult to accomplish, especially for a newcomer at 18 years of age.
- Another thing I noticed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory_Mason ... Tory Mason's article has stood the test of time, beating deletion review. He and RJ have been in the industry approximately the same amount of time, and yet RJ has had more accomplishments than Tory, his films gaining more awards and he himself quite a bit of recognition. Why does Tory's article stay, while RJ's must go? Do not understand whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see What about article X? under arguments to avoid. From my reading of the January 2007 AfD for Tory Mason, the article survived by virtue of a mention in the mainstream gay press under Criteria #4 of the old WP:PORNBIO guideline in effect at the time [2]. That rationale has been superseded by WP:BIO general notability guideline. Also, that AfD went up about 90 minutes after the article was created, and that was counted against it. Mason's notability may be marginal by the current standard, but it is still better sourced than Danvers'. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get how it is better sourced. I've used AVN multiple times as a source, and that's very credible. Appearing in several high profile award winning and award nominated movies and being signed exclusively at such a young age to a VERY major studio should be enough to be deemed notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Mason has a non-porn gay press mention, thin by by current standard but there. Beyond that, Mason's and Danvers' porn press coverage is alike, sharing the same problems. Two of the AVN/GayVN sources say what Grunts achieved and don't mention Danvers. I don't know Mason's notability by current without research, but I found very little credible sourcing for Danvers. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So is Danvers interview in MAINSTREAM LGBT publication Genre magazine enough for notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Mason has a non-porn gay press mention, thin by by current standard but there. Beyond that, Mason's and Danvers' porn press coverage is alike, sharing the same problems. Two of the AVN/GayVN sources say what Grunts achieved and don't mention Danvers. I don't know Mason's notability by current without research, but I found very little credible sourcing for Danvers. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get how it is better sourced. I've used AVN multiple times as a source, and that's very credible. Appearing in several high profile award winning and award nominated movies and being signed exclusively at such a young age to a VERY major studio should be enough to be deemed notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see What about article X? under arguments to avoid. From my reading of the January 2007 AfD for Tory Mason, the article survived by virtue of a mention in the mainstream gay press under Criteria #4 of the old WP:PORNBIO guideline in effect at the time [2]. That rationale has been superseded by WP:BIO general notability guideline. Also, that AfD went up about 90 minutes after the article was created, and that was counted against it. Mason's notability may be marginal by the current standard, but it is still better sourced than Danvers'. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been doing some research around. This IS my first article on Wikipedia. In doing research, I learned that the notability issue is a GUIDELINE. ""This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."" as found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO ... so if they are just guidelines, and not necessarily requirements.... RJ's achievements are notable. His age, rise to stardom, and accomplishments in less than a year in the industry should be recognized. His participation in numerous award winning and nominated films is notable. There was a bit of a small uproar amongst internet websites when he himself was left off the GayVN nominees list. I also know now that in my previous post it was not right for me to cite "but what about this article?" as a reason it should stay, but in all honesty.... why should some articles stay and some go, when they have similar content? I have cited numerous sources to vouch for his notability, but its still up for discussion? I reread the article about when RJ first got signed to Raging Stallion, and the only part even mentioned in the wiki article was about how he was the youngest performer to be signed to Raging Stallion. The fact that the rest of the article has quotes from his agent shouldn't reflect on a stated FACT in the beginning of the article. I just can't find a reason why this shouldn't be allowed to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines are the working editor consensus, and occasional exceptions need good reasons. We're not there yet. If somebody credible writes about this uproar, then it could count. Notability guidelines discount Internet "popularity" for porn because it is so easily and so often manipulated. In short, Danvers needs ongoing attention from WP:RELIABLE sources (general notability) or objective recognition from the industry/critics/peers (PORNBIO). • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Understood. But what I dont get, is how you are claiming that I have to get more and more sources when I've already established notability based on the porn star guidelines. It says, simply, that someone has to appear in a groundbreaking film. I've proven that. How much further do I have to go? This does not seem fair, whatsoever. The whole reason it is being brought up for deletion is for notability purposes. When I first made this article, I didn't understand how the deletion process or notability establishment worked. I'm still learning... so far, I am finding it to be REALLY difficult to please the editors. I've done what the notability guidelines state I have to do, and still I'm being told it's not enough. Is his interview in MAINSTREAM LGBT publication Genre magazine enough to establish notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Genre interview would be a good start as long as there is a citation to verify it, like a link at genremagazine.com or issue date/no. with page no. that people can look up. Depending upon what's in it, it can help a lot. Beyond that, "groundbreaking" and "iconic" are extraordinary claims that need high quality sources to back them up. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Well I will cite from Genre. Hopefully that can take care of this issue. I'm removing the tag.--Rockstars721 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, what is the criteria for something being named "ground breaking"? I find it to be a word with many interpretations. What would constitute a porn film being ground breaking? I would think being the most expensive, most profitable, record breaking film in recent years would constitute a movie being ground breaking. --Rockstars721 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Genre interview would be a good start as long as there is a citation to verify it, like a link at genremagazine.com or issue date/no. with page no. that people can look up. Depending upon what's in it, it can help a lot. Beyond that, "groundbreaking" and "iconic" are extraordinary claims that need high quality sources to back them up. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Understood. But what I dont get, is how you are claiming that I have to get more and more sources when I've already established notability based on the porn star guidelines. It says, simply, that someone has to appear in a groundbreaking film. I've proven that. How much further do I have to go? This does not seem fair, whatsoever. The whole reason it is being brought up for deletion is for notability purposes. When I first made this article, I didn't understand how the deletion process or notability establishment worked. I'm still learning... so far, I am finding it to be REALLY difficult to please the editors. I've done what the notability guidelines state I have to do, and still I'm being told it's not enough. Is his interview in MAINSTREAM LGBT publication Genre magazine enough to establish notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines are the working editor consensus, and occasional exceptions need good reasons. We're not there yet. If somebody credible writes about this uproar, then it could count. Notability guidelines discount Internet "popularity" for porn because it is so easily and so often manipulated. In short, Danvers needs ongoing attention from WP:RELIABLE sources (general notability) or objective recognition from the industry/critics/peers (PORNBIO). • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as he has appeared in mainstream LGBT publication (Genre), and fulfills the notability requirement for adult film stars by appearing in a ground breaking, award winning film as a star (Grunts).--Rockstars721 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, BlueAzure went and added CITATION NEEDED tags all over the article, in places it didnt need to be added. Nearly every one of the dozen or so citation needed tags are cited. Like any research paper, when you are done paraphrasing an article, you cite. Not after each sentence. The rediculous ammount of citation needed tags are obnoxious! I am removing them on this basis.--Rockstars721 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor may have tagged more than necessary, but another fitting tag would be {{Peacockterm}}. The tags about Danvers' starring role in a "groundbreaking" feature still need objective evidence to answer them. In Wikipedia, superlative and extraordinary claims need clear and objective evidence. (Yes, I said this before.) • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As much as I wish these kinds of articles weren't on Wikipedia, this one meets the min criteria. Needs cleanup though. — BQZip01 — talk 06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with BQZip01 that he seems to meet WP:BIO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2008 (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.