Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brandon (pornographic actor)

Add links
Source: 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator

(non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Brandon (pornographic actor)

I am withdrawing the nomination --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Michael Brandon (pornographic actor) (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)

I went through all the sources here and I can't find anything suitable to sustain notability: n.1)it's an interview (primary source), n2)it's literally one mention, n.3)it's his own page, n.4) IMDb (not reliable), n.5) it's an interview (primary source), n.6,7,8 and 9) announcing the winner of a porn prize and porn prize do not count to prove notability since pornbio was deprecated. plus, in 3 of these sources his name doesn't even appear. So bad sourcing that doesn't yield notability. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I'd argue that while interviews shouldn't be used to establish something mentioned in them, OTOH the mere _fact_ that a
    WP:RS decided to interview somebody, is good enough to count for notability purposes. Would SF Weekly interview me (or millions of others)? No. But they did interview Brandon, so there should be something special about him. Ipsign (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Ipsign: actually I stongly agee with you, but is this a wikipedia policy or not? we should establish that interviews, at least those on very good media, count at least for notoriety. speaking of these Interviews, SF weekly is a local paper right? something distributed only in the sf bay area. so we have 2 interviews one of which on a local news paper, I don't believe that makes someone notable for WP standards. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Honestly it is a bit confusing to me. I personally wrote Carlo Masi bio and to be accepted I was asked (otherwise they woulsn't accept it) to show consistent presence on national and international papers (mainstream). Carlo Masi is just an example, I can see other porn actors who can present such sourcing. So, why are we keeping articles like this one basing on one single article which happens to be a half interview? I see people are voting keep and I accept it but I would like to understand why they are doing so, what is their keep based on?. When I nominate an article I expect 3 possible results: the article is deleted, the article is improved, I am given an explanation of why I wouldn't have nominated that article and how the sourcing proves notability. Here I can't see any of these results happening. We are discussing if one single article. How many people had an article like this in their life? Bilion, I really can't see how in good faith one can say that this article alone proves notability. where and what did you find in the guideline that makes you suppose that one or 2 articles make person notable?. what I feel is that some people are voting keep basing on their personal perseption of this subject. when we deprecated pornbio we decided that porn is not a short cut to wikipedia. people of porn hav to show the same level of notability than the others. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you may want to take a break from your quest to delete articles in this area. The sources usually exist but for systematic discrimination do not pop in a plain Google search.
    • LGBTQ content is typically discriminated against; there are leading national, regional, and locally-focused media which almost never are tracked by Google.
    • Gay porn news is almost never going to show in a Google search without the exact website.
    • Loads of mainstream, and gay-porn focused print media is not accessible online, but have done in-depth articles and interviews—which are certainly acceptable—have to found offline.
    • When I look I see plenty of sources for Brandon. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found the following, although some are mere mentions, others do go in depth:
  • "Adult Star Michael Brandon | Gay | AEBN". gay.aebn.com. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>
  • Jul 28; 2011 | 2 (2011-07-28). "Monster's ball". Dallas Voice. Retrieved 2020-05-13. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)</ref>
  • Dec 8; 2011 | 1 (2011-12-08). "Slick move". Dallas Voice. Retrieved 2020-05-13. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)</ref>
  • Belonksy, Andrew (2008-10-03). "Sad". Queerty. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>
  • Cybersocket Wall Of Fame Award Of Excellence - MICHAEL BRANDON - "CyberSocketWebAwards". www.cybersocketwebawards.com. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>
  • There are more but these should help meet GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: googling any porn actor name will yield many results (ofeten hundred thousands of results) but very rarely there are any suitable sources to prove notability. Now, if we can find a couple of good sources I am more than happy and the page is imporved, otherwise "probably there are sources" is not an good reason to keep an article (even if I read this reason more than once already, see zak spears). I don't agree that porn is censored by google, and there is no problem having sources not online (as long as they actually exist). Some of the article I nominatd have been online for years and if no reliable sources have been added so far I wonder if they actually exist. you suggest me to take a break from nomminating, just tell me if I am being vandalic or if I am breaking any wikiedia rule. I followed everything on before, before nominating and I think my nominations are fair but if I am doing something wrong I need to know. ps. if you answer me please ping me :-) . --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlejandroLeloirRey:, I think you are doing something wrong as I just demonstrated. You looked at a poorly written, under sourced article and after some searching(?), assumes it couldn’t become a good or even great article as sourcing didn’t exist. Well it does. And most articles need work, hard research to find information in sources, then re-writing the article to incorporate them. It takes work, and time to do so, far more time than to incorrectly misjudge the situation. When you keep sending articles to be deleted, coupled with perhaps mistakenly misleading nominations, you’re swaying others, who may or may not be mature or wise enough to know where to look, to also make bad decisions. And we all lose when a notable subject’s article is deleted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: yes, may be I could do more research before nominating and I will do it next time. Still, if an article has been there for 10 years and the sourcing is poor there are little chances to find good sources. like i already told you the fact that a google search yields 10 thousand results, especially for porn actors, doen't tell much about notability. the fact that most of the article I nominated where cancelled and those which were not deleted where relisted at lest once tells me that my nominations where reasonable. I don't want to destroy the porn section of wikipedia but most of the article were accepted under different guidelines. 90% of the porn acotr bio that are now on wikiepdia would not be accepted if they were written today. I want to improve the porn section getting ready of all not notable bios and keep just the bio that are worthy to be kept. speaking of this particular article among all the sources you found, did you find some that definitely prove notability? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlejandroLeloirRey:, you cannot use the current state of the article to judge if a good article is possible, only sourcing and work can tell. You need to do a much better job at researching for sources, IMHO. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: I am going to try harder. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlejandroLeloirRey: I'm sure that you're right that 90% of pages in that topic area are not up to current standards. There are two ways you can work on that problem: by adding more to existing articles and making them better, or by deleting articles that are currently bad. I recommend the improvement project instead of the deletion project, because: 1) It will tangibly improve the amount that readers will learn about the subject. 2) Improving pages is something that you can do yourself, without taking up other editors' time. When you put articles up for deletion, it creates more work for other people. 3) You know from your experience with the Carlo Masi page that articles which look non-notable to some people can be built up to acceptable standards. When you try to delete rather than improve, you risk deleting notable topics just because of how it looks to you. Obviously, you are free to do what you want. I find that improvement is more productive, more satisfying, and better for the project overall. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: so far I did a lot of work on the articles but just not as much on the sourcing. I assumed that I would find most of the best sourcing already in the articles, especially because the articles are old. now, went trough those links that Gleeanon409 gave me and I found a few (very few) that are not that bad and even though most of the articles were not from reliable sources they all agreed that the subject was very important in the field (even though most of the articles where about his getting arrested again and again for drugs). I included those sources in the article (please check I didn't miss understand anything, you know my english is far from being good). Now i feel that he actually passes notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:41, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Brandon_(pornographic_actor)&oldid=1083746513"