Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tory Mason

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. The delete comments are unconvincing, and this looks like newbie biting. He appears to pass the fourth criterion of WP:PORNBIO. Anyone who disagrees with this take it to WP:DRV. Majorly (Talk) 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Mason[edit]

Contested prod. No evidence of notability. D e nni ^talk 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN pornstar. Has only been featured on websites save for one film. --Wildnox (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete `'mikka 01:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable porn actor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, does not comply to WP:CITE wtfunkymonkey 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't some things just stay out of the sum of all human knowledge, he's not notable and he's just some gay porn star who has been in one film. I doubt anyone would bother to look him up so it's just a waste of space T. Kewl the First 03:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:PORNBIO TSO1D 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. etc. etc. Spinach Dip 09:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jyothisingh 13:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Jyothisingh.--Yannismarou 15:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete definitely... who is this person? get him off wikipedia, wikipedia is only for extremely famous people and is not big enough to hold the little ones

Keep. Although passing WP:PORNBIO usually means the actor is notable, failing WP:PORNBIO does not necessarily mean they are non-notable. In particular, this one passes the criteria for WP:BIO in that he has multiple non-trivial articles written about him, as noted in his article (the articles listed are here: Tory Mason Interview and [1]). Although you yourself may not find the actor's contributions notable, be assured that it is not unlikely that someone will want to find out information about him, and Wikipedia is a valuable resource for that. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we are not subject to physical size limitations. If a subject passes WP:BIO there is no reason to exclude him, even if you don't particularly care about him. *sigh* these AfDs always seem to have a bandwagon effect at the start. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If for no other reason than to allow a reasonable amount of time to find additional information and sources.

The article was begun at 22:21 and, 6 minutes later, (only 3 minutes after the most recent edit at the time), User:Denni added the {{prod}} tag at 22:27.
The tag was removed at 22:32 and work continued on the article.
Less than half an hour later and one minute after the most recent edit to the article at the time (at 22:52), the speedy deletion tag was added by User:Makemi at 22:53. The next edit was made a minute later, at 22:54. In other words, the speedy tag was added to an article that was actively being edited.
The {{hangon}} tag was added at 23:02, and active edits continued.
The speedy tag was removed by User:Pilotguy at 00:10 and replaced with the {{notability}} tag.
The very next edit—a whole 18 minutes later, at 00:28—was User:Denni adding the {{afd}} tag.
Although I wrote on the article's talk page that I doubted the article would meet the notability guidelines, I'm reversing myself.
The article meets the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy
Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) and Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) (WP:PORN BIO) are both guidelines.

(Point of information: WP:PORN BIO was intended to help clarify notability guidelines for porn performers, not replace WP:BIO).

WP:BIO specifically states, in bold type:

"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."

One of the items listed in the guidelines would also appear to be applicable:

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by

A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following"

One of his movies, The Bottoming Desire, is already available as streaming media from NakedSword.com, one of the largest streaming media porn sites.
His Yahoo group, created in July 2006, has 2,057 members. There have been 260 new members in the past week alone.

By comparison, the alecpowersfans Yahoo Group, created in June 2002, has 6,183 members, very slightly over 3 times as many as Mason (3x2057=6,171. A difference of 12.).
The videography at tlavideo.com for Powers lists 47 original films and inclusion in 14 compilations.
So a performer with 7 films whose fan site has been active for less than 6 months has 1/3 the number of fans of a performer with 47+ films and a fan site that's been active for 4-1/2 years.

The fact that he is a model on Randy Blue is quite significant; it is one of the largest online gay amateur porn sites there is. Mason has done three video shoots in the two months he's been on the site; the most recent was on December 6.
WP:BIO also lists a criterion, under the Alternative tests section:

"Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub?"

I would think it highly likely that it will be given the speed with which this actor is moving in the industry.

He made 7 films in less than 10 months—almost unheard of in gay porn.

This was an attempt at an article by a first-time editor. Why in heaven's name would you nominate an article that was actively being edited? How could you judge whether or not there was information forthcoming that would establish his notability while the article was being edited?
Sadly, I notice that the newbie has made no further edits and, it would seem, has given up. Way to go.—Chidom ^talk 00:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not given up - its the holidays and the newbie is busy :) I appreciate all you have done, Chidom. It was my first page and I am still learning the ropes. Joosy 08:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I see no need to delete this article. PLEASE KEEP this article. The information contained warrants its merit to be SAVED. Thanks! Xxx1971 07:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC) — User:Xxx1971 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment about this editor's contributions was added by Oden (talk• contribs), 14:02, 31 December 2006—Chidom ^talk 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable in his field. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Chidom (talk · contribs) Has the right of this, and WP:BITE needs to be watched closer when nominating work in progress. Haste makes waste. Hell, I've had similar starts nominated before I could get back to expand them See for example Arsenal of Democracy that nearly met a similar fate out of the gate. But that editor at least discussed it first. There needs to be a qualifying time limit on any nomination of at least 24 hours after initial starts. Basic courtesy and respect for anothers time, imho. Delaying an nomination a day isn't going to hurt wikipedia! // FrankB 22:50, 1 January 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.