Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Shaw

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. Technically this can't be closed as "nomination withdrawn" due to 2 outstanding "delete" !votes. However, since this has been open almost 7 days and the nominator's concerns have been addressed, I'll punch it "keep". Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Shaw[edit]

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

~~Apparently non-notable author/model. Fails the criteria at WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO; insufficient coverage in reliable sources found to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn, see below. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this does indeed seem to be a non-notable subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only non-notable but self-promtion by the subject. Lacks reliable sources.--Charles (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is a notable LGBT model, writer, and performance artist; although it's a terrible article. There are plenty of sources that could have been found at Google books. He has been interview by most of the LGBT press, including Out magazine at least twice, and has appeared as a character in paperback fiction. He's mentioned so often in Queer Lit that the authors assume the reader is familiar with the man: "Intensifying this co-inherence (the Vatican comparison would work better if Aiden Shaw — or a similarly illustrious porn star — replaced Jesus) is the crucial technique of Jehan's hagiographer ...." Cary Howie, Claustrophilia: The Erotics of Enclosure in Medieval Literature, p. 59 (Macmillan, 2007), found at Google books. Please, you may not like the guy, but he's clearly notable. Also, AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did run a WP:BEFORE check, and found the entries on Google books - however, with the exception of an interview in OUT magazine (which constitutes a primary source), all I saw was passing coverage, works by the man himself (also primary), and fiction written using him as a character (not appropriate for verifying any facts about him as a person). He gets mentioned a lot, sure, but where's the independent, in-depth coverage? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn As it turns out, he's won several Grabby Awards, which gets a pass of WP:PORNBIO. Nomination withdrawn accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per awards, coverage found by User:Bearian, and the nom's withdrawal. And while Out may have interviewed and wrote about the subject, it was they who exercized editorial control over their questions and the resulting published content... and even if considering an interview as WP:PRIMARY, it must be noted that, with caveats, "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close per nominator's withdrawal. Cavarrone (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2012 (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.