Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William H.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William H.[edit]

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

Another BLP without independent reliable sourcing or nontrivial biographical content. Just a list of not-very-important awards. PROD removed on the claim that the subject passes PORNBIO by winning a well-known/significant award, but there is no evidence that "Best Director - Non-Feature" even approaches meeting that standard. Even if it were to squeak by by a whisker, the technical SNG pass would be far outweighed by the complete failure to meet the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:CREATIVE criteria 4(c) with his multiple award wins. Director awards were divided into two major categories, features or non-features. Two very distinct style of pornography video. It is inappropriate to dismiss his awards as being non-significant in the field because there weren't single director of the year award cross-category in those years. Non-contentious parts of his biography can be fleshed out through the trade journals, AVN[1][2] and XBIZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject here "has won significant critical attention" for his work as a director, namely multiple award wins over many years for "Best Director" for non-feature films at two different adult film industry award ceremonies, so far. All citations that are currently in this article here are reliable for the information that they cite. Guy1890 (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a technical SNG pass does not overcome the lack of reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. At best, can be deleted & redirected to Elegant Angel; WP:WHYN is applicable. Please also see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_October_9 for a deletion review on Vanessa Veracruz which was a comparative articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The discussions around an actress that won a relatively new & likely minor niche award ("Girl/Girl Performer of the Year") at the XBIZ Awards obviously doesn't apply to the subject of this AfD here, most importantly because the subject here has apparently won no XBIZ Awards at all and the most relevant inclusion standard that's mostly in play here has nothing to do with PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Other tHan AVN there's nothing to confirm notability, AVN were no doubt paid to write these sources anyway, –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. on the basis that the awards are unimportant. But meeting a SNG can be enough, because the point of using them is that whether sources are considered substantial (or independent, etc. ) is as much a question of hard a supporter or opponent of the article is prepared to argue than the actual sources. One can almost argue either way, depending on the actual way we decide, which is a global decision on whether the article is worth keeping. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 2 November 2016 (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.