Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cole Carpenter

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. The delete arguments here cite a lack of reliable sources, and no evidence that he meets either WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. The keep arguments mention the possibility that he may meet WP:ARTIST#3 or WP:PORNBIO, but offer no evidence to prove it. No prejudice to recreation if reliable secondary sources are found. Kevin (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Carpenter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article (or anything I can find on google) suggests that he meets WP:PORNBIO, and I can find no significant coverage of him in reliable sources. --Beloved Freak 12:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the period of the films he starred in, online sources from his earlier films will be scarce. The fact that he was in a Richard Attenborough film and starred in at least 19 porn films would mean that he has a reasonable body of work. In this case the more general WP:ARTIST #3 guidance has been satisfied even if nobody has yet found a particular named award that would meet WP:PORNBIO. Ash (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments by Ash --emerson7 03:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (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.