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. Clean it up to valid bluelinks only, ansure BLP is not violated (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films[edit]

List of male performers in gay porn films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unsourced since creation in 2004, tagged as such since December 2008 with many edits since none of which has added a single source; Possible BLP concerns; besides, their article should be enough. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —- ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close this please. Sorry, AfD is not clean-up. This is a perfectly acceptable list. Likely many if not most of the articles themselves have references so simply importing those would make sense. If there are BLP concerns than address those specificly. Nothing to warrant deletion I'm afraid. -- Banjeboi 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benji, this list is 5 years old and not a single source. You know we don't leave articles, especially BLP articles, unsourced just because an entry in the article may be sourced in another article. I've even edited this one in the past but have since come to learn that it's just WP:LISTCRUFT and wide open for BLP issues. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off this is a list which has BLPs listed on it, that is a different issue. Secondly per WP:Before - If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. If it needs sources add them, if there are BLP issues then address those directly. A more constructive route, because AfD is not clean-up, is to work on sourcing the entire list then adjsut teh lede to reflect sourced items only. After the sourcing has been sought for each entry add to the hidden text that items not sourced to reliable sources will be removed. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the list hasn't been worked on for 5 yrs, its time to start working on it. The individuals should be those where there is unambiguous information supporting it in the WP articles on them. DGG (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd suspect that many, if not all of the links go to articles, clearly source this, esp. if a BLP issue is in hand. Lugnuts (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is already a Category:People appearing in gay pornography, so this list is actually fairly redundant. 5 years and zero sources......This article was actually deleted 2 years ago. And two years ago, people were talking about adding sources.....where are they? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree. If there is already a Category it's redundant. BioDetective2508 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2009

• • Per WP:CLN "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sure what this list provides that a category cannot. Looking through the list, I think most of those stars need to be AFD-ed too Corpx (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CLN "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I'm in disagreement with that guideline. The guideline goes on to say that duplicate lists should be kept so that can be expanded in the future. I dont see any worthwhile information that can be used to expand this list. Considering that the vast majority of articles in this list are horribly unsourced, I think that adding more columns to this list would just compound the problem. I also think that 5 years is more than enough time to expand it, if the intention was to do so. Corpx (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While lists and categories may be synergistic, it is a misconception that they are carbon copies of one another since lists are regular articles that have to abide to policies like WP:NOT and guidelines like WP:N. This article has major BLP and sourcing issues and unless they are all cleaned up by the time this AfD is over this article should be deleted. Many of the people on this list are uncited BLPs which are especially dangerous considering their alledged profession, so I wouldn't object to a thorough examination of their articles as well. ThemFromSpace 10:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no. We do not impose deadlines as such. BLP and sourcing issues remain clean-up concerns and per AFD are issues that should be addressed through regular editing and not AfD. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree. When material violates BLP policy it must be removed. AfD is a form of BLP cleanup and it is how we routinely remove of BLP-infringing material. We do impose deadlines when material is thought to violate our policies and guidelines: this is just how it works here. WP:BLPDEL reads if the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. I believe "when in doubt, don't delete" should be suspended for articles of such a contentious nature, where appearing on this list can have major effects on the subjects' real lives. If this is not cleaned up by the time the AfD is be over it should at best be userfied to work on the sourcing issues. Allowing an article like this to go unverified and be full of unreferenced BLPs for so long is nothing short of a disgrace to our verification and BLP policies. ThemFromSpace 03:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreeing with Benjiboi.. Guy M (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Unsourced, extremely valid BLP concerns. A very stupid idea to keep this article. Aditya ^α _ß 09:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a list that simply leads to numerous other Wikipedia articles. Yes, time to improve, but if the articles in the list do not violate BLP, then the list certainly does not... specially as it itself is not a Biography of a Living Person... only a list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you don't understand. The article is unsourced. So there's no way to verify if most of the people there are actually "male performers in gay porn films". And if they aren't, that material is libelous. Aditya ^α _ß 11:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That arguement would have thousands of articles deleted from Wikipedia. Just because an article is unsourced, does not imply that their is no way to verify the information. I verified the A's and the B's of the LIST. Yes, it took time. Yes, each one I verified had gay adult films listed at IMDB. Guy M (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is the crux of the issue. Wikipedia has so much unsourced information, it's one of the reasons that we've got that immense amount of negative publicity. If you can check ALL the names on IMDb, that's fine. Else it's libel and it must be removed. (If it survives AfD, I'll clean up the article by removing the unsourced material) Aditya ^α _ß 14:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a list of bluelinks. If those linked artcles are unsourced or otherwise fail BLP, that is a matter for them being considered individually. This nice list puts all the eggs in one basket. Check the eggs, don't toss out the basket. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the individual article confirms that the person should be a part of that list (should be sourced), then I can copy the source onto the list. Else, it's libel and it's prudent to remove the person's name from the list, and the unsourced sentence from the article. Aditya ^α _ß 18:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You have provided a proper solution per WP:CLEANUP. Remove bluelinks that do not lead to articles for male porn stars. Checking the eggs, does not require tossing out the basket. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:20, 3 July 2009 (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.