Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan

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. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carrigan

Paul Carrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Fails

• Delete per nom.--^Trust_MeTHROW! 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Strike blocked sock contribution. Ash (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a terrible nomination, obviously no effort has been made to check notability before raising for deletion in a drive against gay porn stars. He was notable enough to act as himself in the spoof film Full Frontal (2001). He directed over 30 porn films. He starred in over 250 published films (perhaps the most well known are Underground (1997 with Jeff Stryker) and Three Brothers (1998)). As a director he created a whole genre of gay porn wrestling films. Obviously the article needs more references (few sources from the 1990s are on-line) but it is also obvious that due to his impact on the adult film market, he meets
  WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO and that there is every prospect of reliable sources being found due to sheer size of his body of work. Ash (talk
  ) 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There's no evidence of him passing
    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". Epbr123 (talk
    ) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should take a break and have a
      nice cup of tea? I thought that being one of the most prolific porn stars of his generation would make it pretty obvious that he is notable for this reason alone. PORNBIO is a guide, not a bible. If you need an award to add, start with his lead role in "The Hills have Bi's", it was winner of Best Bi Picture & Best Sex Comedy at the 1996 Gay Erotic Video Awards. Ash (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The films won the awards, not him. Do you have a reliable source that he was one of the most prolific porn stars of his generation? Epbr123 (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The films are publications, they can be counted. How many people do you think have more gay porn film roles than him? Please expect to wait at least 24 hours if you have any more of these sorts of questions. Ash (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per body of work that meets
  WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. Send to cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  How does he pass

  WP:ENT or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Per career and significant roles, how can it possibly be

  perceived that does he not? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Could you be more specific about how his career meets the notability criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps more helpful in discussiong your concerns if you could explain how you believe his career and significant roles do not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Ash, and
  -- Banjeboi
  11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  Which of his contributions are unique? Epbr123 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  There are very few comments on this page and only two attributed to Ash. I'll allow you to do your own work.

  -- Banjeboi

  12:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete fails pornbio, bio, all of the relevant notability guidelines for people.
  talk) 17:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails pornbio and gng for me. I haven't seen any concrete evidence that verifies his notability. Mainly arguments based on being prolific which was rejected as a criteria when PORNBIO was being developed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:04, 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. [Yes, this is a cut and paste.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for a cut & paste opinion, in this case you do not appear to be basing your opinion on the sources actually included in this article. Ash (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Those aren't sources in the
      WP:BLP sense. They support trivial assertions of fact. Angus McLellan (Talk)
      14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as above, in spite of the fact that the fellow's contributions in pornography are unique; everyone's DNA is unique, after all. Mostly it's mixed in a cup by a prop specialist. Jack Merridew 08:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the world was that supposed to mean? Please, please (please!) tell me that isn't a 2 Girls 1 Cup reference... Stillwaterising (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there appears to be a recent rush of delete opinions either exclusively based on PORNBIO or strongly based on it (from the names of the contributors, likely to be a result of the link I included at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors). In this case Carrigan is an established film director for the specialist genre of erotic wrestling, please take that into account as PORNBIO is for actors not directors. I would also like to point out how blunt a criteria PORNBIO is by contrasting Corrigan's significant impact to the field, and his notability for being the second most credited actor in the history gay pornography, with Christopher Ashlee who amazingly passes PORNBIO because he was once named (along with seven other actors) in a group scene award in a 2009 Grabby but is notable for absolutely nothing else and has been credited with just 2 not-particularly-notable films. Ash (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the claim that he is "one of the most prolific porn stars of his generation" do not appear to be
  WP:N. If there are no sources, there are no sources. Ash claims there may be offline sources, but none have been produced. No objection to userifying until such sources are found, but as is, it should be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs
  ) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Please do not misrepresent my statement. I stated above that "there is every prospect of reliable sources being found due to sheer size of his body of work". It may not have been your intent, but your phrasing reads like an allegation that I was faking the existence of sources. I encourage you to consider the options explained in
    WP:ATD, particularly as I suggest that the current level of sources in the article are enough to avoid deletion as being unsourced (not that this is ever a good sole reason to delete as we would automatically delete all stub articles). Ash (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep I find that 250+ (or 265+) acting credits and 30 director credits to be sufficient in establishing a notable career. --Stillwaterising (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I was unfamiliar with
  WP:pornbio
  , so I've had a little read through:

1. The films he was in won the awards, not him, so fail.
2. No mention of nominations, fail.
3. Is not a Playboy playmate, fail.
4. Hasn't started a trend, nor starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature, nor is in the hall of fame, fail.
5. Has only featured ONCE in mainstream media, fail. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:33, 9 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.