Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan (3rd nomination)

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. The consensus is that (a) Carrigan does not pass PORNBIO, so debate about whether or not it is a valid guideline is irrelevant, and (b) that the references in the article do not constitute the significant coverage that is required to pass GNG. Also worth noting that we do not dismiss sources because they are dead links, but Delicious carbuncle's claim that the sources are not reliable anyway has not been refuted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carrigan

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and all coverage found is trivial. Epbr123 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received coverage in multiple different sources, referenced in the article. Recipient of multiple award nominations. Lengthy career as both actor and director. NOTE: Same exact AFD nominator the past three (3) deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're doing notes, should we note that in the first of those discussions you deleted the article? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the second challenge was voluntarily removed to userspace for more sourcing to avoid another delete result at AfD... So it's really probably not the best keep strategy to point out past challenges and their outcomes... Carrite (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least this is a halfway competent rendition of an actual biography, unlike 99.93% of the pornbio fan cruft we see at AfD. Not sure whether the sources showing are sufficient to get this over GNG; I'm not inclined to opine here. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article contains little more info than a typical porn bio stub; it's just been fleshed out by putting infobox and award info into sentences, using a lot of repetition, and adding irrelevant trivia such as in the fourth paragraph. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Real name, birth date, place of birth, pseudonyms, a real history, etc. — the typical crap cruft is more like "Roxxxy Sparxxx is the star of Ejaculation Celebration XXIV, Dallas Does Debby, and Oh, No, It's Ron Jeremy. Again. In 1997 she was nominated for the AVN's prestigious Best Asian Newcomer In a Group Scene of 7 Or More Using a Garden Vegetable Award." Then three paragraphs of random unsourced description of persons, places, and things in which she has orally imbibed or known in a biblical sense. The end. And we're supposed to keep that shit because of the AVN "Award Nomination." Ha. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where is his real name sourced? IAFD contains birth dates, places of birth, and pseudonyms for nearly all porn stars. Much of the career history in article is unreliably sourced. Epbr123 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Passes WP:PORNBIO because he has received multiple nominations for a significant industry award. -- role^player 18:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see GNG addressed rather than a controversial and in practice very nearly deprecated low bar which is a relic of a previous era at WP. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator expressed their desire that the page be deleted because it fails the criteria of a particular set of guidelines. I demonstrated how it met those guidelines. -- role^player 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see only one nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you didn't. The nominator talked about trivial biographical coverage in reliable sources, a question that xe has consistently raised for two and a half years and a matter which you in fact haven't addressed at all. If you addressed the question head on — something that in 3 AFD discussions and 1 deletion review has yet to happen, since every time it's come up discussion has been diverted onto some secondary notability criteria — perhaps there won't be a fourth nomination from Epbr123. You know what argument to make. Why not actually make it this time? Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You know what argument to make. Why not actually make it this time? This is the first time I have participated in a discussion on this article. A criteria was cited, I studied that criteria, I made a decision having read that criteria, I posted based on that decision, you bashed me for stating my opinion, so this is the last time I will participate in this discussion. Best of luck with whatever it is you are trying to achieve. -- role^player 20:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to bash you, if you thought I did. I was just trying to steer this towards the angle of whether sources showing meet GNG, which should theoretically settle this matter once and for all. While three porn industry nominations might be sufficient in the eyes of some per the current incarnation of the PORNBIO special guidelines, those are themselves the matter of some debate and are in flux. Jumping that low bar now might not mean a whole lot in one or two years' time. So approaching this via GNG strikes me as the way to play things, long term. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrigan has only a single nomination, so he does not pass WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand how we can be having a serious discussion about this article if the sources used 19 times in the article are dead links. Why are awards for Paul Carrigan sourced to an online video store? This is part of the sourcing problem from years ago that resulted in the sudden disappearance of the now-banned sockpuppeteer Benjiboi and the RFC/U regarding Ash/Fæ. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links can be 404 as long as the source is good. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good source. It was never a good source. It is an online retailer, whose aim is to sell DVDs, not act as an authority on the subject matter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note with bemusement that Cirt was the closing administrator at the first AfD, a debate which ended in delete. Has something changed between then and now that has changed the notability of this subject? Carrite (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After the first AFD I decided to do some research on the subject matter and attempted to improve the quality of the page. NOTE: I'm going to choose to take a step back here at this point and will respectfully defer to the community consensus of this discussion. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Industry promotion of a not independently from the porno industry itself, low notable gay pornography actor - Youreallycan 19:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The problems with the sources highlight the non notability of this type of article. Sources that quikly vanish - are indicative of a fad that has run its course. Also movies that only can only show video rental coverage clearly not notable - as these are again little more than thinly vailed advertising material and not subject to fact checking. BO; talk 06:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage satisfying the GNG and BLP principles. The data base and award listings are, as noted by the nom, insubstantial. Of the two book sources cited, the more significant, an academic essay, actually discusses a character played by the performer rather than the performer himself. The other, the memoirs of a non-notable person, has content that boils down to "I worked with him a few times. I liked him and enjoyed sex with him." There is simply not enough biographical information to create an article from. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:RS. Dead links source to an online video store? Nothanks :/ - Alison ^❤ 00:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - due to lack of reliable sources, it fails to meet
WP:GNG. And the refs present are little problematic. →TSU ^tp* 04:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Nothing really stands out as being notable in his coverage (routine and promotional) or awards (all nominations, no major wins). Them From Space 21:50, 30 May 2012 (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.