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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson (pornographic actor)[edit]

Dawson (pornographic actor) (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)

Poorly sourced BLP of gay porn performer who fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

How do the sources not establish notability? SilverserenC 08:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"2008 Golden Dickie Award Nominations" - RadVideo
"Meat Packing" - Sex Herald
I found these three new sources and added them to the article. SilverserenC 09:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has removed the sources listed above from the article, saying they are spam. Can another user please explain to me how they are spam? SilverserenC 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is being needlessly tendentious and calling all of those spam seems unhelpful. They are correct though that our standards for external links (see WP:EL) likely don't support thos as external links. The best bet is to ensure each is considered a reliable source and use them as in-line citations instead. -- Banjeboi 11:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Benjiboi is hardly being candid. All three "sources" are retailer-created pages intended to sell product, and on their face fail WP:RS. There's nothing "tendentious" or "unhelpful" about describing self-evident marketing material as "spam," especially since these "sources" typically don't source article content in any nontrivial way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of what? Can you please be more specific? SilverserenC 18:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they are still legitimate, notable awards, regardless of their reason for being created (or what you believe their reason is), so they do still satisfy WP:PORNBIO. SilverserenC 05:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hullaballoo, you can denigrate the awards all you want. But we as contributors are not in the position to judge the quality of the awards. The awards were properly given by the organizations in question, and properly reported by neutral third-party publications. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's utter nonsense. There's a clear consensus that marketing gimmicks dressed up as awards don't amount to evidence of notability, whether they're given by vanity presses to their authors or porn marketers to their own products. And despite what you say, there's no evidence that, for example, the "Spoogie Awards" have been "reported by neutral third-party publications." Neglible Google hits, no GNews hits, no GBooks hits. The case against these "awards" indicating notability was made pretty clearly by Benjiboi, who acknowledges that the awards were fabricated since the products involved weren't winning any legitimately notable awards. As for Wikipedia contributors not judging the "quality" of awards and distinctions, you're dead wrong. It's done all the time. WP contributors have decided that Rhodes Scholarships don't confer individual notability, or various British crown honours, or White House presentations, or most military honors,or high school and collegiate prizes, or many other forms of recognition. Nothing exempts sex workers from this principle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's absolutely no consensus on whether these awards are marketing gimmicks, Benjiboi's claims notwithstanding. The awards you mention (Rhodes scholarships, for example) have each been considered on their merits, extensive discussion made, and consensus reached. That's not true of the awards mentioned in the Dawson article. Absent such consensus-building, good faith must be assumed and the awards accepted as evidence of notability. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More nonsense. The burden of proof rests with the editor asserting notability, and here it's nowhere near met. You're not entitled to add whatever promotional rubbish you find into BLPs absent a consensus against the specific item. Quite the reverse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Many reliable citations"? Not so. The article has 8 references. Five of the eight go to retailer promotional pages, which are at best dubious under WP:RS. One source is a blog, that's not appropriate for a BLP. The other two appear to be self-published sites, albeit somewhat elaborate ones. If there's an "important sociological reference" here, there ought to be a genuinely reliable source (which typically wouldn't be wallpapered with sexually explicit advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already mentioned and cited in the article; linking multiple times to the same retailer promo pages is more in the nature of spamming than referencing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't intend that. Many (if not most) other actors in this category have separate sections for their awards (as per PRONBIO, to keep clear their notability). I can remove the links but the section should remain, yes? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not misunderstanding, are you suggesting that there is a strong possibility that the porn actor named "Dawson" who starred in Treasure Island Media's "Dawson's 20-Load Weekend" is not the same "Dawson" from Treasure Island Media's "Dawson's 50-Load Weekend (part 1)" or the same "Dawson" from Treasure Island Media's "Dawson's 50-Load Weekend (part 2)" or the same "Dawson" from Treasure Island Media's "Loaded (Dawson's Cream Pie Video)"? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 05:18, 5 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.
More