Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Barry

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 keep.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Rod Barry

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

Rod Barry (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)

the sources do not prove any notability. 1)iafd is not reliable, 2,3,4,5,6) these are list of porn prizes winners which do not count anymore since pornbio have been deprecated, 7) this is a short and shallow interview and interviews do not count for proving notability, 8)TLA is a shop, 9)iafd is not reliable, 10) this is just to short to prove anything, 11) iafd is not reliable and 12)it was his own blog. therefore the sourcing is insufficient, I looked myself for better sources but I couldn't find anything significant. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
@Gleeanon409: let's try it again. For the 1000th time, please comment the article not me. I do not need to be constantly personally attacked by you and I don't need to justify my work which so far has shown to be a good job. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. After Michael Brandon, JD Slater, and Raging Stallion Studios AFDs you’ve proven to be utterly irresponsible for checking thoroughly for sources
WP:Before you make the community spin its wheels explaining how AfD works. You’ve been asked before and I’ll ask again, please focus on improving articles instead of deleting ones on notable subjects. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
you are forgetting also Johnny Hazzard, that one was a bad nomination also. Now, how many of my nominations have been actually deleted? I am not counting but they are about 30... than is 4 mistakes out of 34 nominations. I hope now it is clear that mine is a good job. plus, whenever I was proved wrong I withdraw my nomination, this proves to you that I am not nominating on the basis of a ideology. Now you can stop talking about me and start talking about the subject.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment so far only one source passing mention has been shown. one source that is far from fulfilling any guideline for notability. I hope that the closer will not simply count the votes but most of everything read the reasons for those votes: nothing. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Hmmm. Interesting, you conceded the Escoffier book was good source earlier after saying you reviewed it, now it's a "passing mention" (which it clearly isn't) once again? Make your mind up, please. There is no fixed number on how many different SIGCOV sources that are needed in the guidelines to meet the GNG. Just that the subject has been discussed in significant fashion. Plus we don't know how much he is discussed the scholar articles, as they are behind paywalls. It could be even more than the preview text show. I'm not *that* invested in saving the article to pay the fees to access them. But there multiple different articles there where he as the very least mentioned in books about porn and sex work, in addition to said SIGCOV in said book above and other mentions in at least three other books. Not "nothing" at all. BTW, it's not a big accomplishment to get a porn-related article deleted on here. Countless ones have been deleted over the years because porn stars are rarely covered in any meaningful way in the mainstream press. John Pack Lambert always votes delete on porn articles and voiced disdain for the amount of porn articles on wikipedia, so he isn't exactly unbiased on the subject. Because there is adequate sources out there for Barry. Here is one other from the Associated Press that bothered to get his feedback on the European porn market, the only American performer they bothered to get feedback from for their article. 1 And it shouldn't be dismissed the he was inducted into the GayVN Hall of Fame (along with some acting related ones in the industry). It's only been said significant porn awards *alone* aren't enough to prove notability. All together, it's pretty obvious he was notable within the porn industry, and there is enough sourcing out there to make good article for him.
    GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
comment I think I've stated my case well enough why Barry's article should be kept. The GNG isn't be all and end all of the deciding of an article being kept or deleted and opinions vary on how much coverage is needed to meet it. I believe it meets it as did one other voter. I'm planning expanded the article with refs in the next few days when I have time. I don't have a problem with the Masi article and wasn't even suggesting it be deleted and it's sourcing is way more than adequate, but he was not really most notable porn star, and lets get real, there was very little meaningful coverage out there before the scandal broke out about him being a porn star turned teacher and the press that received and he chose to follow the publicity from that into more coverage from the other opportunities that popped up from that. Good for him, though. But not a reasonable standard to hold other porn star articles up to.
GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
comment opinions... this is why wikipedia is so unreliable, because some people believe that these things can be decided basing on opinions rather than facts. don't you even try, first Carlo Masi is notable as a person and not only as a porn star, second carlo masi as a porn star is way more notable than Mr Barry. as a metter of fact, in the article there are about 20 sources from the time he was a porn actor (not counting all the sources I didn't use, hundreds) while for Mr. Barry we can not find three decent sources. facts not opinions --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment more time to add articles, here we go again. go ahead, the closer will give you more time because they always do but I know by all the previous experiences I had that if you had any significant source you would have pulled out by now instead of ridiculously comparing the subject to Mr.Masi. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok look, I wold like you to come to my page and talk about keeping or deleting articles because I wanna know your point of view. I just want to get rid of those whose notability can not be established by the sources but at this point I want to know why you want to keep mostly all of them. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I wanted to keep all of them. I haven't even participated in any of your many other porn AFD's other than this one and the Johnny Hazzard and Dylan Vox ones (Hazzard was kept from the sourcing and reasoning provided, Vox is to be determined). Because I disagreed and found some good sources. And I rarely even in porn AFD's in general because it's generally a waste of time. The vast majority are always deleted. I have participated in quite a few mainstream entertainer AFD's, providing sources and reasoning why they should be kept, and the majority of those were. Not really interested trying to talk you out of deleting porn articles (really don't feel like it), you seem to feel very strongly about it - do what you want. Spent too much time arguing here already. However, if I feel there is notability and find some decent to good sources out there, I may voice my take.
GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
actually as far as I can see the deletion process is pretty random. I saw articles with pretty similar sourcing been kept and being deleted. I feel that porn bios are more likely to be kept. it is not a waste of time and look, this article is very much likely to be kept. I am on the delete side but I have no problems admitting that this one is on the edge. If it will not be deleted it will come out with your new sources, so it wasn't a waste of time at all, the article has been improved. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am going to use some of the sources listed above. Didn't say I had any new sources to pull out. Go ahead and keep nominating porn articles for deletion all you want even "to a few to represent it" as you said above. Like I said, it's not a big accomplishment on here to get porn articles deleted on here. The vast majority that were created already have been, most deservedly so. You don't have the final say on the outcomes though. Be glad your article wasn't deleted. Have fun creating scores of other porn AFD's.
GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 07:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject lacks the notability to justify an article. Maybe sources could have been found that would do it, but I wasn't able to find anything and it seems like the people who were on the keep side spun their wheels attacking the nominator instead of finding them. Sad! --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Um, sources were provided above. Did you look at them? Plus the subject won multiple major awards in his field. I don't think I've seen an consensus on here that major porn awards couldn't be a factor in determining notability. If it has been, and I missed it, please show me where on here this was stated. I've seen arguments in porn AFD's after PORNBIO was deprecated (which I have mixed feelings on) that awards alone weren't enough, but not that they couldn't be a factor at all. I can agree with that assessment if there's no good sources out there. I don't feel I was personally attacking the nominator (I don't have anything against him as a person, but obviously don't agree on some points), but some of his comments annoyed me and triggered me to get testy a few times. Definitely not something I normally do on here, and I apologize.
      GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
GoldenAgeFan1, the standard for AfDs isn't "sources." It's "in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources." The key thing about this is the "multiple" and "in-depth." One in-depth book mention, whatever the depth of it is, just doesn't cut it and everything else is trivial. Sorry, but that's just a fact. Unless your ToughPig and ignore the guidelines apparently. "But, but, but, he's a porn star!" is no excuse. The crap thing about voting like that is that this will likely just come up for another AfD in a few months if people don't vote properly now based on what the actual facts are. Not doing massively disrepects the process and time of everyone here. Even if it might lead to the article being kept for the short term, and rarely disregarding the guidelines in a vote does anyway. Mostly it just leads to petty bickering and a contentious work place. As can be seen by most of the AfD discussions ToughPig is involved in. Adamant1 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I argued before, it isn't be all and end all of notability. Articles have been kept when there were other factors involved, such as winning major awards in your field. Here are two examples of AFD that I participated in that were kept when there was little coverage out their on there (and less than Barry had, with it came the quality of the coverage) and they certainly didn't have SIGCOV in multiple sources. I was later able to find an additional good sources in the first case that wasn't out there when the AFD closed. [1],
GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
But that book is it with the in-depth coverage isn't it? If so, you voting keep directly goes against the whole "Multiple in-depth sources" part of this. The person doesn't get a pass on it just because they are a porn actor. Adamant1 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rod Barry appears in quite a few books on the subject, for eacmples: The Sexual Self: The Construction of Sexual Scripts, Queer Communication Pedagogy, Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore. He also meets
WP:NACTOR, being in over 150 films, being chrnonicled in books of the period, and being inducted into the Hall of Fame of the most notable body in the gay film industry. This person is a recognised and noted part of the gay porn film industry. Britishfinance (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 21:36, 19 July 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/Rod_Barry&oldid=969883060"