Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Correa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 December 11. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Correa[edit]
- Vladimir Correa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable porn actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is not unremarkable at all. He was one of the most famous porn actors of the late 1980s and early 1990s and appeared with other notable porn stars such as Jeff Stryker, Joey Stefano, and Lou Cass in numerous films as outlined in the article. Keraunos (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wow, two hours after the article was created? Is that a record? -- Banjeboi 02:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - suggest early close for the reasons discussed on the article talk page; raising a hasty PROD within the first hour of creation and then immediately raising this equally hasty AfD without discussion on the active article talk page about the available reliable sources and the likely prospect of addressing notability (using WP:PORNBIO) is overly confrontational and a clear failure to meet the guidance of WP:BEFORE.—Ash (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not sure it needs a list of everything he has been in, but also don't think it should be up for deletion. Article needs improving, but should be on talk page not here DRosin (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. No claim to meeting WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject satisfies the GNG. The "references" go entirely to unreliable sources, sources which simply recite castlists or otherwise provide no significant information on the subject, or sources which mention the subject in passing without providing any encyclopedic information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have overlooked Dyer's book and Gibson's book. "entirely unreliable" seems an exaggeration even if you argue the case against the on-line databases. I note that the films themselves count as reliable published sources for cast lists, awards won, etc; not to mention the Panorama documentary which is produced by the BBC.—Ash (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be misreading my comment; I comment on three types of sources: entirely unreliable ones (like Wikiporno and iafd, which is self-published and therefore not acceptable as a BLP source); sources which recite castlists and summarize scenes without any other content regardng the actual performers, and sources which mention the subjects in passing, like the books you mention. None of these sources establish notability, by strong consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the syntax was unclear to me, I did misread your statement. To take your other issue, I think WP:PORNBIO is addressed by his appearing in a documentary and being the first notable porn star to be cast in gay, straight and bisexual films. Consequently point 4 is met (and possibly point 5 might be argued as Panorama was a very mainstream documentary and he appeared in 3 episodes). He also appeared in a large number of magazines and front covers, and I assume that these would make for good sources if someone digs them out. Consequently I find it reasonable to expect that more and probably better sources are likely to be found and added to the article.—Ash (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing in a single documentary isn't alone enough to satisfy WP:PORNBIO, which requires multiple mainstream appearances. The other claim, aside from the "notable because he's notable" element), doesn't even match up to the article, where a weaker claim is completely unsourced. If you had sufficient reliable sourcing for the point that a) that sort of crossover was unusual at the time, and that b) the subject's appearances in such crossovers were themselves significant (very preferably contemporaneous references, which are more likely to be reliable), the situation would be different. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as the article has only created yesterday, I'm not sure why there would be any rush to create and close this AfD before any reasonable search for such sources has taken place. Such detailed questions of reliable sourcing should have been raised on the talk page when it was evident the page was under construction.—Ash (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing in a single documentary isn't alone enough to satisfy WP:PORNBIO, which requires multiple mainstream appearances. The other claim, aside from the "notable because he's notable" element), doesn't even match up to the article, where a weaker claim is completely unsourced. If you had sufficient reliable sourcing for the point that a) that sort of crossover was unusual at the time, and that b) the subject's appearances in such crossovers were themselves significant (very preferably contemporaneous references, which are more likely to be reliable), the situation would be different. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the syntax was unclear to me, I did misread your statement. To take your other issue, I think WP:PORNBIO is addressed by his appearing in a documentary and being the first notable porn star to be cast in gay, straight and bisexual films. Consequently point 4 is met (and possibly point 5 might be argued as Panorama was a very mainstream documentary and he appeared in 3 episodes). He also appeared in a large number of magazines and front covers, and I assume that these would make for good sources if someone digs them out. Consequently I find it reasonable to expect that more and probably better sources are likely to be found and added to the article.—Ash (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be misreading my comment; I comment on three types of sources: entirely unreliable ones (like Wikiporno and iafd, which is self-published and therefore not acceptable as a BLP source); sources which recite castlists and summarize scenes without any other content regardng the actual performers, and sources which mention the subjects in passing, like the books you mention. None of these sources establish notability, by strong consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have overlooked Dyer's book and Gibson's book. "entirely unreliable" seems an exaggeration even if you argue the case against the on-line databases. I note that the films themselves count as reliable published sources for cast lists, awards won, etc; not to mention the Panorama documentary which is produced by the BBC.—Ash (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, nom unfortunately ignored WP:Before completely and this is about the 6th or 7th time doing so all in this subject area. Additional systematic bias both culturally and on wikipedia makes for an uphill battle for this content. There is also the various names that each have to be researched under. There is no doubt this information is true just a need to ensure more sources are added. I see no reason to not allow more time for that to happen in this case. -- Banjeboi 14:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Statement that content is true just needs sources is a tacit admission of a BLP violation. Find the sources, then write the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-read BLP and look to see what if anything would be considered a BLP violation. Most BLP articles have multitudes of unsourced items but they remain not a violation but simply still unsourced. What we look for on BLP's is unsourced negative information. Seemingly the "negative" information here is solely that he has performed in gay pornography which sources already confirm. Is there something else you are claiming as a BLP violation? If not it would probably be better to focus on articles which are truly damaging to the article subjects and Wikipedia. -- Banjeboi 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was in a documentary, mentioned in a book, did films with notable people in this industry(and yes, you are notable if you are paid to have sex with several notable people, and people then pay money to see that), has a long career including many reviewed films, which would surely mention him as well(not going to look too closely, because I don't like reading about gay porno, with the exception of hot lesbian cartoon girls). Dream Focus 02:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails pornbio, and the coverage found seems trivial to me. Epbr123 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With regard to WP:PORNBIO, which wants porn stars to have been given awards, most of the porn industry awards began to be awarded after the mid-1990s. For notable porn stars before the mid-1990s, there need to be other criteria. Keraunos (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - invalidate As this AfD was hastily raised only hours after creation, it has been radically revised since, see diff. Consequently opinions expressed several days ago were on a different article compared to the one current. I propose a swift close of this AfD as non-conclusive due to a failure to follow WP:BEFORE.—Ash (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nominator and Hullaballoo. Warrah (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per wp:Before, article has been expanded since nomination and sources are available to establish notability. --Jmundo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep -as several editors noticed, this is an invalid AfD failed to properly address WP:BEFORE.The article as it is now makes a pretty good case for notability, too. --Cyclopiatalk 23:56, 7 December 2009 (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.