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. Shimeru (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes PORNBIO - the previous source was deleted and not replaced as can be seen in the page history. One suitable reference is http://www.grabbys.com/PastWinners.html and the award itself is described with other potential source material at Grabby Award and Grabby recipients. In this case a tag for improving references would have been more appropriate than raising for deletion. Ash (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the repeated deletion of sources, including grabby.com, I thought the following may be useful in resolving the issue:
Delete since there is no in depth coverage of this person, anywhere, fails BIO and GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that 4 resources have been added. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of them a reliable source. Retail wanking sites and wanking-fan blogs aren't reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about the grabby site itself, which has now been added? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This man had 8 co-winners in the Best Cum scene category in the 2009 Grabbys, run by the tiny free weekly Grab Magazine in Chicago. If one actually believes that "award" is enough to hang an entire encyclopedic biography on, then that's the case for the other 8. Of course, all 9 will not have any biographical information or even correct birth names. It pretty clearly demonstrates how low the bar has been set by the porn project's guidelines. These are not the Academy Awards (though i would argue that even an academy award winner no one has seen fit to profile should not have a wikipedia article; it's just for truly notable awards like the Academy's, every winner does get covered heavily in reliable sources). For instance, there are about 25 Academy Award categories (but frequent co-winners, so lets say about 35 winners a year). The "Grabbys" have 31 categories. Of these "best group" includes five winners every year, "best duo" is obvious, best "three way" ditto, best "rimming scene" is for two winners, and "best cum scene" appears to range from 2 to as many as 9. So what we have is a Grab magazine porn marketing event (the magazine is heavily porn and escort focused -- you can dowload sample issues at it's amateur-hour website) creating 44 "winners" a year. That's more than the academy awards does! And is this the academy awards of porn, or even of gay porn? Nope: That would be the GayVN Awards, which have a mammoth 44 categories of their own (each category with about 10 nominees) cranking out between them potentially 100 new unsourced wikipedia blps a year. Amazing!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's all correct. Take up policy with WP:PORNBIO, not article by article. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and non-notable. Porn sites as cites do not cut it. Jack Merridew 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You want to include porn references, as long as they're not porn references. Is that right? The grabby site stands, if none other. This performer won that award. Do you have a particular POV that you want this excluded? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That award doesn't mean boo and your link doesn't even mention this fellow. If I've a PoV here, it's that articles require proper sources that discuss their subjects in depth. Jack Merridew 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThere is just no coverage to ever create a well rounded informative biography of this person. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes the article a "stub", not worthy of deletion, right? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument makes no sense. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Grabby awards have been used to satisfy WP:PORNBIO in many other gay porn performer BLPs without much argument. The sticking point here appears to be that the winner of this award has been identified as "entire cast on Dylan Sanders" rather than listing each member of the cast. I've suggested elsewhere that there needs to be a discussion of which awards should be considered acceptable for WP:PORNBIO. This AfD probably isn't the right place to do it, but it would forestall these kinds of debates, so would someone with a better knowledge of specific awards care to start it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as winning a group award is a bit of a stretch for notability, even by the the already tenuous WP:PORNBIO "standards". Tarc (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability as ably argued by Bali U et al. WP:PORNBIO is fatally flawed, and every article that is deleted despite citing it, is one more argument for fixing it (eventually??). ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pornbio is descriptive and no longer reflects consensus. This fails what pornbio would read if it reflected broader community consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is worth looking up a bit from WP:PORNBIO on the same guideline page, where it says, "meeting one or more [of the additional notability criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This is a case where a subject barely squeaks past one supplementary criterion, but is otherwise lacking for anything reliably sourced to say about him, and because of that there is no sound basis for an article. I also have to agree with others that the idea that getting 1/9th of an award from a minor local advertising coatrack establishes notability is a sign of deficiency in the notability guideline. The language that suggests notability is established by any award from the 31 ceremonies listed in Category:Pornographic film awards (plus any of the non-porn awards in Category:Film awards), is grossly over-generous compared to similar guidelines for other types of performers. --RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 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.