Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Rapid

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rapid[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 bio doesn't fulfill any notability criteria on guidelines. The most important part of this bio is the fact that his company offered 2 million to Justin Bieber to shoot a pornographic scene with him. Nevertheless, this is something that companies did at that time, it was to make papers write articles. In fact, they did a public offer, they never even speak to Bieber's manager (and the source shows that no one took it seriously). Another thing that might seem notable is his role on "I am a porn star" but judging by its source it is a pretty irrelevant thing. The sourcing is incomplete and partly unreliable. In his sources we can find commercial web sites (see manhd) and iafd. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to substantiate nor prove article’s subject is notable hence fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and Celestina007. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are not promotional, which is what any site does when clicked on and pop-ups for watching live porn results, or about the subjects relationship issues (legal or gossip) --- or that the subject garnered attention by offering to do a porn movie with someone else. The subject apparently bragged that negative news reporting has made him more popular. Wikipedia is not censored, but an encyclopedia, and is not a porn redistribution site. geni.com is not reliable to even mention. Otr500 (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has had coverage in the Harvard Crimson (where they write "Rapid has filmed over 240 sex scenes. In 2017, he was one of the most widely searched actors on Pornhub, and in 2014 he won the Cybersocket Web Award for Best International Porn Star"), Observatoriog (where they call him "one of the most beloved personalities in the world of international gay porn"), The Gay UK (where he's called "prolific"), Gay Star News, five Queerty articles (three with him being the focus), and San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender News. Between the coverage, opening his own studio, being one of the most widely searched actors on Pornhub, and winning a Cybersocket award, the subject meets GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About sources: not exhaustive, but: 1. Student newspapers like the Crimson are not considered reliable sources for notability or verifiability purposes. 2. Aside from the arrest story, the coverage consists of publicity stunts by the subject, quotes from a porn star or incidental mentions. 3. Queery: The only two articles are substance are written by the same reporter about the same publicity stunt. As for other claims: Being widely searched: Internet presence counts for very little toward the notability of a porn subject in Wikipedia. Being prolific was dropped as a notability factor way back in 2007. The Cybersocket Award didn't count when PORNBIO was a working SNG, and it doesn't count now. RS coverage is non-zero, but still thin for passing WP:BASIC/GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy that says coverage has to be something that isn't a publicity stunt? Because if it's covered in RS, it doesn't matter what the intention was. As for multiple articles being by the same author, there's no policy against that either. I also didn't mention internet presence or PORNBIO. I still believe the subject passes GNG. Barely, but he does. --Kbabej (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

source should be independent and I can't see how any "publicity stunt" can be independent. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are independent. Again, it's about the RS, not the intention of the action. --Kbabej (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity stunts raise the concerns about depth of coverage and its quality. Coverage coming from this performer's self promotion is fairly shallow in terms of the significant coverage standard for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Kbabej. Student newspaper aside, there may be just enough here for a reasonable claim of notability. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: specifically, which sources do you believe can be suitable to claim the subject notability?. thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said "per Kbabej" which means I find their arguments regarding sources and notability compelling enough to take the stance of weak keep. You have already disagreed with them above, thus I see no point in rehashing their arguments again between us. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: actually you are right, I shouldn't have answered to you. sorry. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Wasn't pornhub insights blacklisted? -- Otr500 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Quick news search [1] shows several _dozens_ of different (and non-primary) sources referring at least to three different events. Come on (and last time I read it, there is no reference to 'publicity stunts' in WP:GNG). Ipsign (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Kbabej - Sources aren't great however notability is certainly there, Certainly meets BASIC IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 14:04, 11 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.