Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Damage

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Van Damage

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No reliable sourcing for biographical content (or nearly anything else). No qualifying awards. No salvageable text in the article history. This abomination has somehow gone unnoticed for more than a decade, and has never been more than a pile of unsourced statements, BLP violations, and promotional junk. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of reliable sourcing causes a total failure of GNG. It is time that we start ridding Wikipedia of articles that lack reliable sourcing, which is probably well over 20% of our biographical articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator. Finnegas (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, With an AVN Award, a "well-known and significant industry award" the subject meets notability requirements as per WP:PORNBIO. The comments about lack of reliable sourcing are justified, however I am working on adding reliable sources or removing content that cannot be reliably verified. --John B123 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His sole AVN award is one for a scene so isn't sufficent to pass PORNBIO. it clearly states "Awards in scene-related ... are excluded from consideration." Finnegas (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the references you've added do essentially nothing to establish notability. Film databases (the majority of citations you've added) generally do nothing to establish notability (and for God's sake, you've added an IMDB cite supporting the subject's supposed birthname, an obviously unreliable source); the only substantive source you've added is a promotional interview for a business he worked for, not an independent source; and the rest are award-related citations for awards that don't count toward notability, a tactic that's been uniformly been rejected in prior deletion discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Nothing to do with tactics, simply adding refs where there were previously "citation needed" tags in an attempt to improve the article. John B123 (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AVN is a valid reliable source. See the articles of Oscar winners, many are referenced only by sources connected to the film industry.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete and keep !votes above are equally without substance. Would anybody care to discuss the actual sourcing available?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because subject seems to passs WP:PORNBIO, which demands that the person has won a well-known and significant industry award. Subject has won the 1997 X-Rated Critics Organization Best Amateur Award for the series Filthy First Timers he directed. We have sources verifying that as well as other achievements in his chosen field of work. -The Gnome (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. 1. He has not won a well-known and significant industry award. He has won 2 scene related awards which are excluded from consideration. 2. He has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. 3. He has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. In fact, according to the citations on the page he has not been featured in any mainstream media. The Gnome, at least 3 films in the series Filthy First Timers were released in 1997. Each of those films had a different director. He only directed and appeared in 1 of those movies (Filthy First Timers 7) in that year. The series won the award, no individual is named in the award. That is hardly a significant award for Van Damage. Sources consist of primary sources (AVN), movie databases WP:UGC, and a passing mention in a promotional interview in an industry magazine (XBIZ). Van Damage does not meet WP:PORNBIO, and he does not go anywhere near meeting WP:GNG 8==8 Boneso (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Boneso's forensics are correct. The details for the series were unknown to me but are important. I withdraw my Keep suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Fails WP:PORNBIO and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2018 (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.