Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel D'Amours

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. In addition to overriding delete consensus, not seeing here significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michel D'Amours[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes WP:ARTIST #3 as he stars in at least 24 films (a significant body of work) including the well known "Young Hung And Full Of Cum". Nominations for deletion are not intended to replace "improvement needed" tags and PORNBIO is not an excuse to purge gay pornstars from Wikipedia when their body of work is self-evident. Ash (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Do you really believe every porn star who's appeared in over 24 films is notable?. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ATD should be followed here. I note that "River Patrol" got Video Of The Year by the Adam Gay Video Directory (which only exists to provide independent reviews). I guess you'll find a reason to ignore it as you are pushing so hard to delete these porn stars that you are biting Keep comments in all these related gay porn AfDs. Ash (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why are you pushing so hard to keep these non-notable porn stars? You're not doing them any favours by keeping their poorly sourced bios on Wikipedia. Epbr123 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You fail to follow BEFORE and have been blanket converting PRODs to deletions. I have raised many articles for deletion when there was no prospect of the sources being improved to demonstrate notability, including gay porn actors; that does not appear to be the case here. Ash (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the nom's opinion, the significant career indeed meets WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. ASH is quite correct. Again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how he meets any of those criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better for a nominator to explain how a significant body of work possibly could not. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. His body of work doesn't include multiple notable films, so it doesn't pass WP:ENT. His body of work isn't a "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre", so it doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Why do you claim he meets these criteria when he clearly doesn't? Epbr123 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24 films is a significant body of work that meets WP:ENT. That those films do not (yet) have articles on Wikipedia, does not make then non-notable... only that no one has yet written the articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that any of his films are notable? Epbr123 (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, 24 films is a significant body of work that meets WP:ENT. That those films do not (yet) have articles on Wikipedia, does not make then non-notable... only that no one has yet written the articles. Starring in 24 films allows me a reasonable presumption or notability, just as dismissing his body of work allows you to presume otherwise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you want every porn star who's appeared in multiple films to have an article? You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a minority one. Epbr123 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be reading something into my words that are not there. I am not and have not spoken about "every porn star". Such misleading presumptions are not helpful to this discussion... specially as this particular AFD seems to show your opinion as being the minority. Editors familiar with my comments at other AFDs know that I am quite willing to opine a delete if I feel guidline has not or cannot be met. I believe in the good brought to the project by diligent application of WP:IMPROVE and I always give serious consideration to the consensually supported WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE before commenting. Surmoutable issues (even if you yourself might not wish to personally surmount them in some instances as evidenced by your having turned prodded concerns into deletion nomonations) are never a valid reason for deletion. Though you might quite sincerely feel an article cannot be improved, removing those prods kinda seems that you do not wish anyone else to try, and have set a ticking clock which had not existed beforehand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not misreading anything: "Starring in 24 films allows me a reasonable presumption of notability". If this is not what you meant to say, please then explain how Michel D'Amours is more notable than any other porn star with multiple films. Epbr123 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not about "every porn star" nor about "any other porn star". From the title on this page, I see it is about a fellow named Michel D'Amours... and no one else. His multiple awards and significant career meet WP:PORNBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't won any awards, and saying "significant career" doesn't explain anything. Epbr123 (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr123, your interpretation of ARTIST may be different to others. You appear to be stuck in a loop, just telling people they are wrong and putting them on the defensive is unlikely to get them to change their opinion in an AfD. I am not attempting to give you advice, just highlighting that this does not help reach a consensus. Ash (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that someone has won awards when they haven't doesn't help reach a consensus. If someone can explain to me, based on actual facts, how he meets any of the guidelines, I'd be willing to change my mind. I wouldn't be suprised if there is a loophole somewhere that makes him notable. Epbr123 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123, I've noticed that loop also. Since its a given that mainstream press does not cover a gay porn star unless the gay porn star gets coverage for something not involved with gay porn, and since absolutely anyone can bring any article to AFD for just about any reason... I think it is up to the nominator in such special cases to show how WP:ATD is not a consideration and more specifically how an article about a prolific actor can somehow never be WP:IMPROVED. Please visit all the gay porn genre websites, find the gay porn articles about him, and come back and tell us how the genre-specific coverage by genre-specific does not meet guideline. Please show us your facts, rather than your opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO, GNG, and ENT for me. ARTIST to me is more applicable to the directors and producers of the genre. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Directors watch and give direction. Producers watch and foot the bills. It's the ARTIST that actually performs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no evidence has been advanced at this time to rebut the nominator's assertion that this article fails to meet the general guideline for notability. Nothing has been done to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in regard to sourcing. BLP is a core policy and not negotiable. References, so-called, don't appear to be reliable sources or even, so far as can be seen, terribly relevant. A substantial film review in a reliable source works towards makes a film notable, generally, but not necessarily any members of the cast. Walled garden anyone? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer please note: Pornography stars, and even more specifically gay pponagraphic stars, do NOT, by the nature of their genre, receive the mainstream press coverage as do actors who keep their pants on. It is always best to judge an article for WP:POTENTIAL for improvement for what it is, not what it is not... and those that do not look for sources will naturally not find them. For instance, a search finds a May 1994 review of the film Homegrown in Gay AVN where the reviewer specifically praises D'Amours by writing "Lead star Michel D'Amours shows us he can act too, despite his heavy French Canadian accent." WARNING: Other genre-specific graphic image-laden sources include Torso magazine August 1995, Lolita mags, Zeus, BD Quebec (French), Pornteam, Gay Porn Times, Gay Erotic Archives... and many more such. And it is to be noted that he is also known by Michael D'Amours, not just the French "Michel". Almost the only thing I found without graphic images was his less-than-complete IMDB page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage you think deserves highlighting seems to be one line from a film review. Is that really the most significant, in-depth commentary there is? Angus McLellan (Talk) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question should be, are there resonable prospects for sources being improved? If there are, then ATD is appropriate as deletion is not being driven by blatent BLP violations (i.e. all data is supported by primary sources (such as the film credits in question) but may suffer from weak secondary sources). Searching the British Library catalogues shows no results for Manshots or Torso magazine, however they do have some relevant 1990s gay magazines (the HCA or LAGNA gay archive may be more useful but not all their gay archive material is catalogued on-line). The IHLIA catalogue does show matches for Manshots, for example, and has a rare international archive of erotic gay magazines. D'Amours' most productive period was 1993-1995, so online sources will be rare, however as he did appear as a big-name cover model on magazine covers and some references have already been added, it seems likely that relevant sources using private collections and institutional archives can be found, particularly if someone with knowledge of American gay archives does a little research. Ash (talk) 05:31, 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, JForget 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe in this case, WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG fail, as per the nom. Though 24 films is significant for a mainstream actor, for a porn actor, it is not, and so WP:ENT doesn't really apply either. (I also think that WP:PORNBIO is meant to supercede WP:ENT for this reason.) Addionne (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the GNG or WP:PORNBIO appear to be met. 87.114.24.206 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC) — 87.114.24.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.