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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Quinn (pornographic actor)[edit]

Jeff Quinn (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)

This was prodded and deleted about two weeks ago. However, I had to undelete it to make way for a history merge, and I thought that this might need to go through AfD. Original rationale: "Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO." No opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. NW (Talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines. Boleyn2 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep as "Rhett Routley" was Man of the Month" centerfold for the December, 1985, issue of Playgirl. Appears that under both names he has coverage in genre-specific sources. Time to improve, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Epbr123, but Ash has made an excellent observation below. Quinn's carrer has an historical context within his industry which pre-dates the awards listed in the PORNBIO criteria. Notability is not supposed to be temporary, but more important, deletion considerations cannot be based upon this actor not meeting a award standard that didn't even exist during the fellow's career. By way of comparison (and noting that Quinn is known for something completely different), but would someone suggest deleting Mary Pickford because she did not win awards that were not even in existance during her career? Guideline suggests and encourages the use of common sense. If any actor, no matter his field, is used by others to characterize his profession, that would seem to be most indicative of his enduring notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mary Pickford passes WP:GNG, Jeff Quinn doesn't. Epbr123 (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • They both pass WP:N but for different reasons. That fact that PORNBIO includes consideration of an award that did not exist during this man's career is a flaw of PORNBIO, not a flaw or strike against this person's notability. Sorry I was not more clear. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You need to be clearer how Jeff Quinn passes WP:N. Your only reason so far is that he hasn't won an award. Epbr123 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was quite clear, ignore it as you will. The awards did not exist during his career and PORNBIO is flawed in not considering historical aspects or stars BEFORE the existance of the modern awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Um, ok. So every porn star before the 90s passes WP:N because PORNBIO is flawed? Epbr123 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry. We're not talking about "every porn star before the 90s". We're talking about one individual, and part of your argument is that he could not be notable because he did not win an award... one that did not even exist when he was prominent in his career. THAT is the flaw of PORNBIO, and shows the weakness of relying on that flaw in arguments. 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep sufficient prospect of sources being improved that WP:ATD applies. It seems odd that PORNBIO is used to keep articles such as Adam Bristol where he is only notable for winning an award and yet an actor such as Quinn who has been used by writers to characterize the porn industry of the '80s (a Google Books search will provide some of these matches) has been deleted (this is a resurrected copy) on the basis that nobody has found a porn award in his name. Not surprising as most of the awards did not exist until the mid-90s, consequently applying PORNBIO over-literally leads Wikipedia to have no record of the most notable figures from the 80s adult film industry. Some of his films are highly notable and AVN winners. Ash (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're caught in a loop of refusal again. As pointed out and not refuted, PORNBIO is flawed and thus inapplicable in determining notability for porn actors whose careers predate the list of modern awards, thus missing and ignoring historic context of some actor's contributions. Another flaw in interpretation of PORNBIO is in some editors reading it to only allow of consideration of female notability in its wording that allows consideration of Playboy Playmates, while ignoring being man-of-the-month for Playgirl... the magazine that shows specific notability for the other gender invloved in adult entertainmant. Further, and not refuted, Ash has already pointed out that Quinn "has been used by writers to characterize the porn industry of the '80s", which meets the intent of PORNBIO #4 for his contribution to the industry as whole, if not for one specific sex act. His being characterized in multiple books as shown by Ash, meets WP:GNG, specially as porn stars do not get headlines in mainstream press. Your simply repeating a claim "he does not" after others carefuly explain how he specifically does, is not as helpful as might be hoped. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Playboy Playmate criteria is about to be removed from PORNBIO, so being man-of-the-month for Playgirl certainly does not confer notability. There isn't even a source that Jeff Quinn and Rhett Routley are the same person, which is a serious BLP violation. The claim that he "has been used by writers to characterize the porn industry of the '80s" needs to be verified. As you should know, if you want to show Jeff Quinn passes WP:GNG, you need to find significant coverage in reliable sources. I've looked on Google Books and Google News and there's no non-trivial coverage of him. Epbr123 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The notability is per WP:GNG in the Playgirl coverage being significant coverage in a nationally recognized genre-specific publication. I was not aware of any discussion to change that guideline from its current form, but found in and commented. Perhaps you should post a link to it here so other editors might contribute in reaching a proper consensus in that discussion.. one which might then adequuately expand the criteria rather than remove them... most specially as genre-specific soucres are what are required in any consideration of genre-specific notability... and even more specially for actors whose notability predates modern awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your conviction that coverage in a nationally recognized magazine cannot show WP:Notability runs contrary to established guideline. Coverage as a Playboy's Playmate of the month, or as in Quinn's case Playgirl's "man of the month" (both nationally recognized publications), quite adequately meets WP:GNG (at least until attempts are undertaken to rewrite that as well). That coverage, coupled with his notabilty as a pre-award icon who (as written in many books) characterizes his genre during the 1980s is more than enough to show notability. I do not see guidelines as in any way meant to be exclusionary, even if rewritten to seem so. I see them intended as tools which (should hopefully) encourage common sense in determining notability for different topics in different situations. Quinn is notable. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Basically, if you want me to change my mind, find some significant coverage. If you can't, ask yourself whether you should be "rescuing" this article. Epbr123 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not think your mind can be changed. The significant coverage in the genre-specific nationally known publication Playgirl, and his being referred to in books as the characterization of 1980's porn in numerous books, show notability. You say it does not. Others say it does. Further, your dedication to an inapplicable portion of PORNBIO (demanding modern PORNBIO awards for a pre-award actor), convince me no amount of discussion will change your mind or encourage that you yourself could WP:IMPROVE this article per WP:ATD. That I or others have not added them to the article is not the issue. The issue is that the article CAN be improved.... and THAT makes it a keeper even if others have not jumped through the hoops and done so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Appearing as a Playgirl centrefold isn't independent, significant, reliable coverage. You really should know that. Please direct me to one of these book references so that we can discuss it. As I said, I've looked on Google Books and can't find any significant coverage. I won't be discussing this much further if I keep having to repeat things I've already said. Epbr123 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• <outdent> Playgirl is genre-specific and expert enough for this field for this individual. Unlike total unknowns that get promoted in Playboy and then may or may not have a career based upon that coverage, Quinn had his career both before and after the Playgirl coverage... coverage that was initiated because of his career and its notability. THAT makes the coverage significant enough. Was paid for his appearance? Probably, but he was also paid for his film appearances, so the coverage is of the same quality... a paid appearance in a media that had wide distribution. Unless of course, you have documentation throuh OTRS that proves his career stemmed from the Playgirl coverage, rather than that coverage stemming from his career..? But then, both those options show notability as well. Using common sense in considering the careers of individuals whose careers predate the awards and organizations listed in PORNBIO is perfectly allowable, actually encouraged... and too often ignored. (See below) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE

"Let's try common sense. A novel concept."

— Barack Obama, 2010 State of the Union Address

"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter."
"Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? If you need to be told that this is a rule, you've missed the point entirely."

— Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, Section:Use common sense

It's never wrong to use common sense and proper perspective. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Content and sourcing added to show they do meet notability. When more pre-1995 newspapers become digitized his impact will also be more evident to all. -- Banjeboi 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources you've added appear to be unreliable, except for this, which is just trivial. Epbr123 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that sources are improving supports my keep rationale above, as per the ATD guidance, such articles should not be deleted but marked for improvement when there is sufficient prospect of sourcing problems being addressed. If specific sources added by Benjiboi fail RS, please take this up on the article talk page. Ash (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails WP:PORNSTAR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  While understanding your comment, discussions above show that WP:PORNSTAR has an inherant flaw which creates an unfortunate systemic bias against individuals whose careers pre-date the listed awards and organizations. As Wikipedia is not supposed to be only about what has happened recently, an individual, specific genre or no, who can be shown to have a notability which predates the criteria being used, per WP:NTEMP, is notable none-the-less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Any and all talk about porbio is irrelevant! In fact ALL of BIO is irrelevant because this actor def. passes GNG and according to the second paragraph of GNG "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines (like BIO)." Closer take note - all deletion arguements based on not passing PORNBIO are invalid if GNG is met. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And all keep arguments based on passing GNG are invalid as all the sources are either unreliable or trivial mentions in movie reviews. Epbr123 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you said earlier in this discussion, and yet you failed to provide detail about your problems with specific sources on the article talk page (or anywhere else) so that improvements could be made. Vaguely suggesting that there are reliability problems or the sources are insignificant without backing up your claims seems rather shallow as an argument. Quinn's body of work is demonstrably notable, the films themselves are sources, the awards they have won are reliably sourced, that he was a well known model and Playgirl centrefold is not disputed. The fact that leading writers in the field of Queer Cinema, such as Dyer, use him as examples in their books is not disputed. GNG specifically allows for sources where the subject "need not be the main topic of the source material". Please consider IDIDNOTHEARTHAT as you seem to be unable to take these facts on board. Ash (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are the unreliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The rest are trivial sources, eg. [5], [6], [7]. Epbr123 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disagree on all your assessment. Lavender Lounge looks like just a blog but upon closer inspection he is considered an industry expert. The source by the way, is only asserting that a centerfold spread is him. The archived Playgirl listing is simply showing what the magazines contents were, we could just simply cite the magazine itself if you insist. Etc etc. You seem to miss that gay porn stars are discussed in mostly gay porn magazines and not mainstream online sources, especially for people who were active before 1995. If you insist on going down this rather argumentative path we can ask at RSN for each source supporting each statement and then add every magazine article he did. Do we really need to go that route? It would seem a better use of community energy to maybe source some unsourced BLPs since that is fresh in people's minds. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be properly referenced, the sources seem reliable to me (eg whether directly or indirectly referenced, Playgirl is a valid source), and the guy has had a significant career in his industry and has been noted as such by reliable writers -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the reliable source that Quinn and Rhett Routley are the same person? Epbr123 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photographs in Playgirl are obviously the same person, the magazine itself is the reliable source you are looking for. Your scattergun approach to find new reasons for deletion is pedantic. One can improve any article indefinitely, the issues you are raising could be discussed, researched and resolved on the article talk page and do not need an AfD to be addressed. BEFORE and ATD apply, deletion is heavy-handed. Feel free to either check the source quoted yourself or add ((verify source)) against that text if you wish to encourage improvement. I note that smutjunkies lists him as appearing as a glamour model in MANDATE: The Men of Matt Sterling (1998), ADVOCATE MEN Oct 1987, HEAT Dec 1987, July 1988, Dec 1988, INCHES Jan 1987, JOCK May 1990, July 1987, MANDATE Aug 1987, PLAYGIRL Dec 1985, STALLION Sept 1987 (v06 n05), TORSO Aug 1987, BOLT May 1988, STUDFLIX Aug 1987 and LEGENDS: MEN OF FALCON Bruno Gmünder, Falcon. There seems no particular reason to think that such listings are false, in fact the magazine covers on the website are reasonable verification evidence, and if only some articles can be verified by editors checking archives, then these are all potential reliable sources for his notable modelling career in addition to the films he was credited with. Ash (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Epbr123, I don't think that blanket arguing against everyone who doesn't share your opinion is really likely to help your case - I suggest you might do better to chill and let everyone have their say -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll assume you agree with Ash's answer. Just for your information, people looking alike in photographs isn't a good enough source for such a contentious claim, and it's original research at best. Epbr123 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to be misrepresenting my statement. I did not say the only basis of verification was photos looking alike. For the third time, if you wish to pursue improvement of sources, this is a matter more suited to the article talk page rather than an AfD. Ash (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The photographs in Playgirl are obviously the same person, the magazine itself is the reliable source you are looking for." - I can't see how I'm misrepresenting that. Also, smutjunkies.com is unreliable as it's content is user-generated. Epbr123 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you getting stuck in a loop again? I did not say the only basis of verification was photos looking alike. As for smutjunkies, that fact that logged in users may make comments on some pages is not the same thing as the actor profiles which are not user editable and do not have any user comments. The profile pages clearly state "all information compiled and presented by smutjunkies.com, GayEroticArchives.com, Hysteric Industries." For the fourth time if you wish to pursue improvement of sources, this is a matter more suited to the article talk page rather than an AfD, particularly as you are now challenging potential new sources which are not even used in the article. Ash (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The site also states ""While every attempt to present real & reliable information is made, we acknowledge that sometimes we will get it wrong. Contributors are requested to give information they "Know To Be True" rather than "Feel To Be True" or rumors they remember or can not confirm." Not the sign of a reliable source. Epbr123 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The facility for user feedback to improve website data seems sensible, not the sign of a poor source. The quote you give shows that care is taken not to accept unverifiable user feedback. Why are you keen to debate sources not included in the article? Take your recommendations for article improvement to the talk page where they may do some good. Ash (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real evidence he passes either the WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Contrary to Schmidt's ridiculous claims regarding the additional criteria, they do make provisions other than winning awards. However, neither the article, nor any of the arguments here, are substantial evidence of him qualifying under #4. What makes him anything more than a run of the mill porn actor? Nothing that's shown.Horrorshowj (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @ Horrorshowj: A run of the mill porn actor is not a man-of-the-month in a national magazine, nor referred to in books about that era as being representative of 80's porn, unless he in some way or for some reason was. The use of common sense is encouraged in the use of every guideline. And thank you for the wonderfully polite and civil phrase "Schmidt's ridiculous claims". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and thank you for noticing the effort. Let us use common sense. Playmate is losing as sufficient, Penthouse Pet went, I'm not sure Hustler ever qualified, and even xxx of the year from Score didn't hold up. Why, specifically, is "Man of the Month" for Playgirl such an awe inspiring accomplishment/achievement that it should be regarded as sufficient for notability? He's "mentioned." That sounds an awful lot like trivial coverage. Convince me with actual evidence that it's significant coverage and I'll change my position accordingly. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned? As man-of-the-month and centerfold with in-depth coverage in a magazine with national distribution? Seems somewhat more-than-trivial to me and others, even if not to you. I do accept that those wishing to have no coverage of adult genre topics within Wikipedia will naturally dismiss coverage in genre-specific publications, ignore the WP:GNG and the caveats at WP:RS that encourage that a source's reliability be considered in context to what is being sourced. And some editors consider any coverage of such topic, if not in the New York Times or Washington Post, to be "trivial", even if not. But that is not making use of guideline encouraged common sense. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lovely soapbox, but not very effective at debating anything I said. You seem to have divined my secret anti-porn crusade, good for you. Since that would obviously be acting in bad faith, perhaps you should start some sort of grievance procedure that I might face the full wrath of the community and its mechanisms. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:25, 21 February 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.