Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Stafford

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Stafford[edit]

Alan Stafford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail, thus falling under WP:WHYN. The award listed is not significant & well known. Many articles created by the same user have been deleted in the past; pls see multiple notices at the User talk:Epbr123 page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Saying that article is probably non notable because editor X created it is a very weak argument. The creator (a former admin) made porn-related articles that met the WP:PORNBIO guideline as it was understood at the time. In this case, the subject won an individual category of the AVN Award. Until recently, that was considered a pass for PORNBIO. Question to the community: how many cuts to the "well-known award" definition will it take before the guideline becomes useless? • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gene93k: What I've observed from participating in pornography related discussion is that there is a big disconnect between the SNG (for presumed notability) and the ability to create an article on a subject that has a technical SNG pass. I believe this to be a failure of the SNG.
I've observed very similar situation with WP:SOLDIER (which is an essay, but otherwise has a similar purpose) when it comes down to certain awards. Ironically, the notability of German Knight's Cross holders was being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) at the same time as the proposed change to PORNBIO (I think that's how I got into the pornography-related deletion discussions).
The indiscriminate application of SOLDIER to KC winners has resulted in articles that are often built on unreliable sources (some of which may be neo-Nazi): sample. Other types of articles contain an exhaustive list of awards and say nothing else about the subject, resulting in permanent micro-stubs / WP:MEMORIAL articles: sample. Both types include a tricked-out infobox and often a glamour shot.
The end of the discussion (in 11 parts and after two or three dozen AfDs) was the consensus to redirect them to alphabetical list. So in short, I see a lot of similarities between porn actor and KC winner articles :-) . Perhaps a similar critical look needs to be taken at PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 14:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NOTE: I have recently edited the article under consideration here, and I'm sure that it can be expanded further in the future. The subject here "has won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the AVN Award for "Best Male Newcomer". All of the sources currently used in this article are reliable for what they are trying to cite and are independent of the actual subject of this article (Alan Stafford).
As for "Epbr123", they have not edited Wikipedia actively for a number of years now, so they obviously aren't around to try & defend their own work anymore. The fact that there are still plenty of Wikipedia editors that just don't like the subject matter in these kind of articles & are unfortunately very willing to edit Wikipedia with that slanted-POV doesn't really mean anything, nor is it a new concept here at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Stafford&oldid=1086055088"