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 of the debate was No consensus. Discounting sockpuppets, anons, and new users, I see roughly a little less than 3:1 ratio in favour of deletion, which IMO is right on the borderline between keeping and deleting. I have to be honest and say that I find the arguments for deletion to be a little better than the arguments for keep. However given that this is right on the borderline, and the credo of AFD is when in doubt, keep, I must close this as no consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulus[edit]

The given reason is: "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." This page is only here to announce that this person alleges that they slept with a celebrity, and went on to announce that in many places. Frankly this looks like an attempt on that persons part to advertise their "claim to fame". We do not keep pages for every bimbo that slept with every celebrity out there, no matter how fascinating the tabloids think that this is.

Wikipedia is not a place for breaking news stories either. Especially ones that have ONLY been substantiated by the original claimant. Michigan user 18:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment His allegations, as well as his now marginal claim to fame as a gay porn star are notable, however much they may disgust you. This is not a "breaking news story" either. The first published references to the allegations are over a month old now. There is other biographical information included on Paulus in the article as well where sourceable. The bulk of the article is on the allegations, but that is a large part of his notoriety. --Rabinid 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striking one of two votes attributed to User:Rabinid. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. He is not a porn star yet. And wikipedia is not a vehicle for his promotion. mikka (t) 20:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Clay Aiken would be the obvious choice, assuming of course that this is all true and verifiable. Note to closing admin: If this debate does not end with a consensus to merge, please consider this vote a delete. This is NOT a vote to keep the article in its current form. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You may not like it, but his porn material is already available to a paying audience through the Lucas website. How does that not qualify, even minimally, as notability a gay porn actor? --Rabinid 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Rabinid was the creator of the John Paulus page. 66.82.9.53 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are videos of ME available on the internet. Not as much FUN as a porn video but they exist and they last more minutes. Do I qualify for a page?? 66.82.9.53

• Buh? What's up with this AfD? User:Rabinid is down as voting twice, but only appears once in the edit history. Did someone paste part of this content in? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this man's claims might be appropriate for soft-news/gossip web sites, tabloid gossip columns and radio programmes. However, he is not even slightly notable or significant in the absence of verifiable sources and details. His claim to be a gay porn "star" is also highly marginal - he may have released porn, but that doesn't make him a star. Sliggy 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there appears to be 2 copies of this discussion on today's AfD page, which might explain the irregularity Adrian~enwiki (talk) noticed. Sliggy 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would pose that in the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas affair the "unverifiable" allegations there were also only sourceable to one person, namely Anita Hill. Paulus allegatations are citeable through numerous published reports: tabloids, radio interviews, newspapers including the Chicago Tribune, NY POST, NY DAILY NEWS, gay and lesbian media, innumerable websites, and still remain uncontested in any manner from Aiken or his representatives. --Rabinid 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the citable references listed are just this guy out there tooting his own horn. Actually I have no problem with him having a page as a porn actor - if it is LIMITED to that. Right now 99% of the article is about his sleeping partners. Remove all the references to his self professed StarF*cking (which looks a lot like "advertising" for attention) and keep the other 2 sentences. Michigan user 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michigan user was the nominator of this AfD. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken this vote. Nominating the article for deletion counts as a delete vote (unless explicitly indicated otherwise), so there's no need to vote again. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The man has made one porn film, or, more properly, his audition was filmed, so he is not a porn star. His allegations are not believeable and the sources "reporting" them are tabloids and shock jocks. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I vote to delete. -Jmh123 22:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the issue/scandal surrounding Paulus has reached the National Enquirer, Star Magazine, The Globe, the New York Post, the New York Daily News and Howard Stern, he is notable as Katelyn Faber or Gennifer Flowers. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference is that this is self promotion. Katelyn Faber did not go public for notoriety or financial gain, and Gennifer Flowers claim was eventually confirmed by Bill Clinton before it was entered into Wikipedia. Michigan user 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Paulus' intentions were such. That is not up to us to decide. What matters is that he has come forward with a claim, and that that claim has reached some notability or notoriety. Whether the claim is true or not, and for what reasons Paulus has come forward is irrelevant for the notability of the issue and of John Paulus. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Articles on porn stars are common and numerous here. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's so. Daydream believer2 02:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Articles on notable porn stars are fine. When/if this guy gets to be a notable porn star, then we can have an article on him. Right now he is deletable. Johntex\^talk 04:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--this is not a famous person for anything other than a claim to a tabloid. Yes it is on gay and porno sites. Is that what this encyclopedia wants to be for? I thought it was more about "real people" with real claim to fame. He has done nothing to be admired or famous for--why have him listed on a site that everyone, including kids, can do searches on? His story, at this point, has no basis of validity and no proof. Do we publish just any garbage here that someone says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.147.55 (talk • contribs)

What do the kids ("...everyone, including kids, ...") have to do with it? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Attention whore, but notable by involvement in infamy. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia, and the user who created it I believe has some kind of vested interest in Paulus' self-promotion. He first turned up at Clay Aiken as an IP edit warring in an attempt to add the salacious details of Paulus' claim regarding sex with Clay Aiken to Aiken's page, against the consensus of many editors (myself included). That effort thwarted, he got a username and created this page that is 99% about his alleged dalliance with Clay Aiken. Absolutely does not deserve a page here. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep infamous notability as much as it sickens me. ugh. --207.200.116.196 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNo more notable than I would be if I told a story to a tabloid. 69.19.14.15 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The claim is a matter of public record, that is, it has been published in newspapers and magazines around the world. As someone said above, it is no different to Katelyn Faber or Gennifer Flowers. Interestingly, Paul Barresi is a similar personality - midleweight porn identity, sex scandal with a big star, in his case John Travolta. What makes Barresi interesting is that a similar discussion to this decided to exise the Travolta scandal from the Paul Barresi page - a far more sinister act of censorship and "spin" than leaving the scandal in. It's a very basic rule of journalism - it's Clay Aitken's job to refute the claim (which he as not done) and it's not Wikipedia's job to pretend it was either never made or published. (In both cases, frankly.) I would suggest trimming the John Paulus article and leaving a brief mention of the Aitken scandal in both his and Aitken's entries. Many articles reference scandals/controversies/claims and counter claims about personalities. Whoby

Whoby (talk · contribs)'s 13th edit. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are people in this AfD with less edits than Whoby. Will you mention it for them as well? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're a registered account, sure, but I don't see any others that are immediately obvious. IP's, I figure closing admins can figure out themselves. And you've been around here long enough that I shouldn't have to point you to assume good faith. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that only 13 edits failed to qualify me for an opinion. I'm not sure that a tiered system of "worth" is quite what Jimmy had in mind when he invented Wikipedia, but thanks for giving me six seconds to speak before you kicked me in the head. I'll belt up in future.Whoby

Didn't mean to offend you -- it's common practice to point out new editors as a courtesy to closing admins. Most administrators don't count the votes of very new users because of the potential for sock/meatpuppetry. Nothing personal about you. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable for the scandal and porn. <rolls eyes> --Featherer 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Featherer's 17th edit; first was to this AFD. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is NOT Clay Aiken's job to refute the claim. It is John Paulus' job to prove the claim. Paulus has not come close to proving anything. Until then Clay is the victim. Which is exactly why no mainstream publication is willing to touch this, and Wikipedia should not either. Of course as soon as Clay comments at all to defend himself - then he becomes fair game for the mainstream press - and he effectively increases the damages exponentially. In the cases of Katelyn Faber and Gennifer Flowers the mainstream press provided considerable coverage, making it notable for Wikipedia. 66.82.9.86 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining mainstream publication? And on what grounds do you say none of them were "willing to touch it"? The story has been reported in major Australian and British newspapers, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, the Contra-Costa Times, the Buffalo News, the Denver Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Portland Mercury, the Louisville Courier-Journal.com, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Arizona Republic, plus the respected online journal Salon, and it has been carried by the AP and KRT wire services to the networks of smaller newspapers they serve. (Whoby 00:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

When it is carried as news, not in the gossip sections, IMHO. 66.82.9.86

I think you are exaggerating the extent and importance of the coverage. -Jmh123 07:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't say for sure as I haven't looked at them personally, but my guess would be most of those blurbs would fall along the lines of ... "The New York Post reported that..." · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the blurbs, and Katefan is correct, except that it goes, "John Paulus alleged to the The National Enquirer that...." I am not aware of the wire services indicated or the "major Australian and British newspapers". All reports that I have seen, including Salon, are in gossip columns. The cited sources in the Paulus article are the likes of the Howard Stern show and Bob and the Showgram, not the NY Times or CNN. -Jmh123 19:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it be recorded in the Aiken/Paulus entries as proven fact, but I think it would be inaccurate to delete the controversy from the record. Fact: John Paulus has gone public with a claim. Fact: major media outlets around the world have reported it. That's called a scandal, and like most scandals (from Keeler to Lewinsky and beyond) it doesn't stand on firm factual ground, because it is subject to claim and counter claim. To pretend the scandal doesn't exist would be either naive or - worse - a sort of censorship, either because some Wikipedia users are Aiken fans, or narrow-minded. To be frank (with apologies to User:Katefan0 who clearly believes that anyone with less than 100,000 Wikipedia edits to their name should belong to a silent sub-class) the Paulus entry should be tidied down to the barest details of the claim, the extent of its reportage and its status as proven/disproven, and it should be noted in the Aiken entry. (Whoby 01:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As I said above, this is common practice. Please remember to assume good faith. I really didn't mean to give any personal offense. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope the closing admins make their decision based on the common sense of the arguments presented rather than who has been "tagged" as unqualified to contribute to the debate. For the record, I am a journalist of 17 years professional experience, I am not a Clay Aiken fan nor am I a John Paulus fan, and I am nobody's sock puppet. (Whoby 05:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It's nothing automatic. Each administrator makes a judgment call at their discretion. But often, especially in votes like this with obvious forum-trolling, new editors' votes are not counted. However, as I said, it's up to the closing administrator's discretion. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that would be rewarding a stalker with exactly what he wants. 69.19.14.19 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether John Paulus proves the claim and whether it is true, is irrelevant for wikipedia. What matters is that Paulus has come forward with a claim, and that the claim has received some level of notability. That's the only thing that counts. Not the motives of the article's creator, and not the truthfulness of the claim. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe that this publication should maintain a higher standard. I refer you to the Aiken talk page, where attempts to insert Paulus' allegations began immediately upon publication. Even now, the story is not yet a month old. Six months from now, will anyone even remember John Paulus? The introduction of sockpuppets to this situation makes it even more suspect. It appears that there are a few people who wish to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting Paulus' career and/or to taint Aiken's.

Wikipedia is not in the business of tabloid news. If this story enters the pages of Wikipedia, it should be as a complete arc, not as a part of some sort of on-going "daily news" style process. There are other outlets for that kind of thing. -Jmh123 19:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is indeed not in the business of tabloid news, but it is also not in the business of opinionizing on public issues. If someone comes forward with a claim about a notable person (like Gennifer Flowers or Katelyn Faber have done before) and that claim reaches notability (as evidenced by the media who have taken up on this claim), it becomes notable enough for wikipedia. Even if the claim proves to be false and the claimant is an attention whore. But I most strongly and vehemently agree with you on the indesirability of possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry in this AfD. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is that what the qualification is?? If a story gets published in 5 or 10 (or whatever number you pick) tabloids and gossip columns, then it is valid for entry into Wikipedia?? Because there is a LOT of trash out there that meets that qualification, and you would be opening the door. Just saying . . . 66.82.9.58 20:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already voted and commented on my position. I started the damn article. I would only add that since this discussion started it is now being reported that this guy's allegations are having repercussions extending to Aiken's career. Forgive me if I'm wrong but that does appear notable. This discussion may becoming moot. [1][(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_2128222.shtml][2] --Rabinid 20:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware warning! Clicking on link #3 posted will automatically install Winfixer 2006 if your computer is not protected. Link #2 also automatically loads spyware. -Jmh123 21:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is NOT necessarily having any repercussions - there is just speculation in gossip columns. Nothing changed, because of this "breaking story". 66.82.9.58 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point in fact: People magazine just published THIS WEEK: "Who's your favorite American Idol?' Clay 69%, Kelly 27%, Fantasia 4%". MSNBC just put Clay on their "IT" list YESTERDAY [3] with the quote "With American Idol trouncing the Olympics and all other comers in the ratings, it is no suprise that the most popular "Idol" contestant in the shows history made our "IT" list. Now that he is on it, will we ever be able to get him off. Claymates do your worst". Apparently MSNBC does not think that Paulus has had the least little effect on Clay's popularity. Frankly Rabinid - it sounds like you are HOPING that the gossip columns reporting it make it true. <rolleyes>. 66.82.9.58 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how a popularity poll influences the debate one way or the other. Wikipedia's own (current) definition of a sex scandal is "a scandal in which a public figure becomes embroiled in a situation where embarrassing sexual activities (or allegations of them) are publicized". Wikipedia even maintains a "list of sex scandals". It should also be pointed out there is a precedent for this debate ... in 2001 porn actor Chad Slater/Kyle Bradford claimed he had slept with Tom Cruise. That got widespread reportage "in gossip columns" and newspapers/tv/radio, and it is not only listed on the Tom Cruise page, Kyle Bradford has a Wikipedia entry of his own. If nothing else, Wikipedia should be consistent within itself. (Whoby 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that popularity is not an issue. The references were in response to Rabinids "repercussions extending to Aiken's career" logic. My point was that Paulus so far has NOT caused any repercussions (as evidenced by the People and MSNBC references) - and therefore Rabinids references have nothing to do with whether or not the Paulus article should or should not be kept. The Kyle Bradford comparison is faulty because Tom Cruise actually SUED, which was reported in mainstream news and made it notable. So far Paulus is just a pesky gnat being ignored by most of the world - not real news. 66.82.9.58 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given it's widespread reportage (Google it) I think your assertion that it's not "real" news is incorrect. Who are you to judge? The horse has bolted on that one - it's had wide dissemination in the news media, therefore it's news, full stop. (Perhaps not your kind of news, or just not news you like, but it's still news.) My point is this: it fulfils Wikipedia's own definition of a sex scandal, and there are comparable precedents (big name + pesky gnat) already on record in Wikipedia ... Tom Cruise/Kyle Bradford, Paula Abdul/Corey Clark etc. If you exise Paulus, then you have to exise every other unproven party in a sex scandal. If not, then it should not only be restored to the Aiken article, but frankly, it should be added to the "list of sex scandals". (Whoby 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The Kyle Bradford article was created on Jan. 25, 2006. Funny, I don't see Tom Cruise/Kyle Bradford or Paula Abdul/Corey Clark on the sex scandal page. Jmh123 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is that you would argue against those being included? Just because they haven't been added doesn't mean they don't qualify. --Rabinid 01:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make you happy, I've now included Paula Abdul/Corey Clark into the sex scandal article. --Rabinid 02:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Paula Abdul/Corey Clark got a HUGELY wider exposure on mainstream news, and television than we are even vaguely coming close to with this Paulus conversation. And Corey Clark was a notable person by virtue of his AI participation, even without the Paula Abdul topic. Paulus is not a notable person, except for his unsubstantiated sex claims. Michigan user 02:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Millions of people has been mentioned in newspapers. Wikipedia is not a promotion tool. Mukadderat 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One scene in a movie doesn't make him a porn star, and gossip pages are not reliable source. That leaves little else. He's only notable as a footnote to Clay Aiken, if that. If he becomes more notable then we can always revisit the matter. -Will Beback 23:16, 26 February 2006 (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.