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 NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Spark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability guideline at WP:PORNBIO. He has had some interviews in subject specific webzines and blogs, but I am unconvinced that these are reliable sources and independent of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Out (magazine) is a prominent gay magazine and did an interview with him. I don't know much about TheSword.com, but they also did an interview with him (since it is an off wiki site, I'll warn of sexual pics). He is close to WP:PORNBIO #4, but not quite there yet. CTJF83 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Xtra! [1] CTJF83 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now, Ok, we currently have 4 articles of good coverage, seems to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO #4 now. CTJF83 03:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Next Magazine is a rather prominent gay magazine and they published a feature article on him and his work that is posted both online and is printed in this month's print edition. Here's a link: http://www.nextmagazine.com/feature-article/erotica-vérité. Gfilmonline (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete fails WP:PORNBIO LordVetinari (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I wasn't going to add anything more here but CTJF83 persuaded me otherwise. Hence, I've changed my delete to a strong delete. Basically, I believe that even with the additional refs, this subject still fails WP:PORNBIO. Reasons follow:

Criterion 1 - The subject has not won a well-known award.

Criterion 2 - The subject has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years.

Criterion 3a - As conceded here, the subject has not begun a trend in pornography.

Criterion 3b - The subject has not starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.

Criterion 3c - The subject is not a member of an industry Hall of Fame.

Criterion 4 - Has the subject been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media? Let's see:

1. Here, the subject is featured in a notable source which may or may not be counted as mainstream.
2. Here, the subject is interviewed on a notable podcast. Interestingly, there were two interviewees on that particular podcast. I think it is telling, then, that one of the interviewees was listed here almost immediately. Our subject, though, wasn't listed until a month and a half later, despite being interviewed on the same podcast.
3. I can't access the Swish Edition interview so cannot comment.
4. Here, the subject merely (possibly) confirms his identity. This source is revealing, though, for the facebook comment made by one Matt Hydeman, "had it not been for the bloggers on the gay side of Fleshbot, I'd have never known about you, Spark". Interestingly, some of the posts on that page seem to mirror this AfD discussion by questioning the subject's significance.
5. This source copies the six pack interview already discussed.
6. This source says very little of substance about the subject. It confirms his existence, his age, and where he's based. Other than repeating a few quotes, the source provides a ot of words but very little content. I do find it interesting, though, that this notable source refers to the subject's videos as a "minor viral sensation" (my emphasis). As well, it also suggests that the subject, although planning to make more videos and possibly make a feature film, has done very little other than post videos to Xtube.

Overall, I think a filmmaker (or porn actor or whatever he is) who has had only two feature articles (at least one of which was submitted under a semi-anonymous byline), who has had only one or two interviews, who does not appear to have his own website or to be promoted on an existing notable industry website, and who's web presence doesn't appear to extend further than Xtube and facebook is not a subject of such notability that he should be in an ancyclopedia. LordVetinari (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gfilmonline (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OUT maybe counted as mainstream or not mainstream? What sheltered, super conservative world does one have to live in to say such a thing I wonder.

1. I just did another Google search and he certainly seems to have found notability in my estimation. I counted 7 independent media interviews and feature articles. LV pointed to 3+ sources in this "strong delete".

2. It seems he does have a website that redirects to his facebook page. www.blacksparkandtheclouds.com I don't know much about that but it seems lots of notable people are opting to use their social network sites as opposed to something more traditional.

I'm entirely missing the point about the time frame in which the subject was listed as a part of the podcast. The "minor viral" comment seems to have been made to contrast the difference between being notable for this type of work as opposed to what happens when one uploads videos to YouTube. Apples and oranges in my opinion but one tends to read what one wants to see. If a person decides to not sign with a "porn" company then I can't imagine he would be promoted on their sites.

It looks like he took a Facebook page and some films posted to Xtube and made a serious impression on the industry so far. Anyone new have thoughts or can provide more sources? Gfilmonline (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make comments like "What sheltered, super conservative world does one have to live in to say such a thing I wonder" without doing minimal "research" Had you taken the time to visit user:LordVetinari, you would see he is in a "same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union", so clearly your allegation couldn't be more wrong. CTJF83 11:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bemused. I simply said the source may or may not be mainstream; in simple terms, I don't know whether it is or not and am leaving it up to others to decide. I'm puzzled, therefore, how a statement which is about as inoffensive as it is possible to be can translate into the views of those living in a "sheltered, super-conservative world". Like I said, I'm bemused. As for whether this subject is notable, I've stated my case and will now leave the decision up to experienced editors, whose views, I believe, hold more weight than the "estimations" of a single purpose account. LordVetinari (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No pornbio pass, no GNG pass. A few interviews in minor industry magazines doesn't add up to notability. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO,imho .--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (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.