Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson (actor)

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. Sandstein 14:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson (actor)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

this subject doesn't meet any guideline for notability. he didn't win any important prize in porn and his sources are unreliable (blogs, interviews, porn web site (commercial) and collections of his pictures). AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of his work seems to be rather infamous (listed in the article, would rather not type them out on here, and I'm not an anti-porn person) and has been discussed in scholarly articles in relation to gay bareback porn.1, 2 So I think there is some notability there. As per usual with porn stars and porn content, you aren't likely going to get an in-depth profile on him or in-depth analysis on his filmography by mainstream news outlets. Not voting as of now, but leaning towards a keep. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough reliable sources providing analysis to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of these academic pieces have been published by long-standing publishers like Taylor & Francis and Duke University Press and some also seem to be peer reviewed. So they shouldn't be automatically dismissed. Two separate journal pieces even assert his most well known film as both a "cult classic" and "now-iconic". I don't really expect much feedback on this AFD, A: because it's porn, so will be dismissed by many, and B: The nature of the performers work is probably shocking and distasteful even for porn standards for many to be taken remotely seriously. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to vote Keep after finding additional coverage in Out Magazine 1 and he was even noted in medical dissertation The Medical Condom: Contentions, Challenges and Opportunities for PrEP, HIV Prevention, Gay Sexuality and the Gay Male Body for Ohio University. 2 and there is also this extensive write up, but I'm not sure if thebody.com is considered a RS. 3 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, I gave a closer look to those articles and in neither of them the subject passes mentioning. In 1 his name appears 3 times in 265 pages. Two times it's in a footnote, and all the three times his name appears only because is in the title of one of his movies, "Dawson’s 20 Load", so the subject is not him but the movie and still is just a mention. In 2, his name appears two times in 28 pages and again, one time is because of the title of the movie, "Dawson’s 20 Load", and the other time, speaking of the movie, it says that Dawson is a bottom. In the out magazine are his movies "Dawson’s 20 Load" and "Dawson’s 50 Load" to be mentioned. Correct me if I am wrong but all of this sounds like mere mentions.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those you addressed weren't extensive discussion of him but did assert notability. In the medical journal piece, the footnote mentions "Dawson, as a premiere award winning performer, is very well-known throughout the gay community even though he and Paul Morris have brought on a lot of controversy regarding the bareback content within their films, especially within the gay community and the pornography industry". In an archived article from the now defunct NY Blade discusses the controversy about him, his films and trying to recruit people for a follow up to his most famous movie, noting it drew the ire of activists.1 the Windy City Times piece mentions the above article and also asserts similar claims.2. Add to the fact that his most notable film is still being discussed in academic articles many years later long after his retirement and dropping out of the public eye (the most recent academic write up was released this year, and as I mentioned some assert the film as a "cult classic" and "now-iconic"), and in connection to the bareback porn genre, I believe notability is there. Also, it's not particular easy to search for material about him alone, due to him using a common, singular name for his porn name. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you add some of this citation to the article?. I understand we need to be a bit flexible with the sourcing of gay porn actor as are hard to find sources but still, being a porn actor shouldn't be a free pass to enter wikipedia. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea, but some are not easy to cite properly, especially the academic ones, since most are behind paywalls. Plus I'm not over enthused to, since the article will likely be deleted in a few days/weeks anyway. Besides the state of the article doesn't necessarily reflect the notability of it. And I have searched for and added refs to many porn-related articles, and yes, sources aren't easy to find for porn-related articles, gay, straight, ect. I probably wasted my time on trying to save this one, as porn articles are usually deleted in AFDs. They are probably one of, if not the most deleted type of articles on Wikipedia (the majority, probably justifiably so). See the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion which goes back to 2007. I agree there should be standards and not every star should/needs to get an article, but I don't think they get a "free pass." Anyway, I think I'm done with this AFD, and focus my time on working on articles that stand a better chance of not getting deleted. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenAgeFan1: look I wrote an article for a porn star which was put into a test here on AFD but it survived, this was one a few days ago. If you feel this one is worthy to be kept and can be saved don't give it up. If there is anything I can do to help you out I will, just let me know. I just wan to get rid of the crap from porn actor list not the good stuff. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Is perhaps Dawson’s 20-Load Weekend notable, but not the actor? Since that page doesn't currently exist, Treasure Island Media is a possible merge/redirect target. —Ost (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. Sources presented above are either not reliable or passing mentions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2020 (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.