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 Consensus is to Keep, however, I am going to look at full protecting/stubbing article, and see if we can build a version that's acceptable to all. Of course, the result of the ArbCom case could point to a direction for this article to take. SirFozzie (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sanchez[edit]

Matt Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Matt Sanchez is a milblogger, journalist, and war blogger. In the course of a pending arbitration involving the subject directly as a Wikipedia editor, he request the article be deleted. That is detailed here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop#Removal request As User:Coredesat said on the RFAR page this looks like the Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Angela Beesley articles. A possibly notable person, who wants his biography removed. Per BLP, I'm nominating this for delete. Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability has been established. We shouldn't delete biographies just because someone has gotten tired of playing games with Wikipedia - or rather decides to play a new game. Aleta (Sing) 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We should keep this article as for current policy regarding notability. I fear notability has been establish using reliable sources and independent coverage and is clear. Policy won't allow our deletion here. I do sympathize with the subject. M-ercury at 21:28, January 13, 2008

• Delete without prejudice to recreation as a neutral stub. Per WP:BLP, the subject's wishes can be taken into account when making decisions related to the article. Notability, while sourced in the article, is fairly marginal overall. We should honor the subject's wishes and delete the article, although if a neutral stub can be written (the history should be left deleted due to attempts to insert BLP violations), it can be recreated. --Coredesat 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show marginal notability? M-ercury at 21:59, January 13, 2008

• Keep - Notabilility has been established in multiple, non-trivial references. Not only to his porn career which by itself is notable, but in addition to his award from CPAC which isn't quite very notable, to his protest at Columbia, to his blogging, to the *strenuous* attempts by certain Wikipedians to protect him from himself. It's quite possible that the last item by itself would establish notability here, in a belly-button-gazing article. By the way his appearance on Hannity & Colmes ? That's awfully notable. Wjhonson (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's times like these where I really wish Wikipedia had a "no double jeopardy!" rule. The whole "let's list it at AFD until we get the result we want" thing can get very tiring. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The previous two deletion discussions were in March and April of 2007, at which time the article was arguably in better condition than now, without the intervening four months of full protection and reams of nastiness. Nor was the subject of the bio asking for deletion; he has explicitly requested it now, and under BLP policy, the request of a marginally notable figure should be taken under consideration. This is not a case of "AfD it until it dies". Horologium (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above arguements about the subject's notability. Please note that the BLP deletion standards have been changed to state that deletion should be considered if the request is reasonable, and it doesn't look as though this request is. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep You don't edit an article about you yourself and fight to have all the bad things removed, and then when the heat is on, decide you want it gone altogether. Additionally, no action should be taken on this article while a related Abrcom case is going on. I imagine someone else would recreate it as a general article just like every other porn star, gay or straight, on Wikipedia because that's where his notability ultimately lies. ALLSTARecho 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, also per WP:NOT#Not a battleground, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. This particular biography is a BLP hornet's nest and in a year of trying Wikipedia has been unable to establish any stable neutral version and the talk page long since degenerated into a venue for personal attacks. The subject is the target of a hate site and is proving himself unable to adapt to Wikipedia site standards. Overall value to encyclopedic completeness: minimal. Overall drain on volunteer time: substantial. Durova^Charge! 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also of note: Wjhonson has made 71 edits to this page and 51 edits to its talk.[1] Aleta has made 121 edits to this article's talk.[2] Allstarecho has made 29 edits to this article's talk.[3] After 21 edits of my own to this article's talk (I answered a content RFC three months ago and followed up in attempts to resolve the dispute), I really don't see any other workable solution than deletion. And personally, I'd prefer to keep this salted. Durova^Charge! 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no benefit to the project to constantly describe criticism sites as "hate" sites. Pwok's site grew out of the constant conflicts about this article, and especially from the unnecesarily aggressive attempt to allow Sanchez to have his way at the expense of the project. Wjhonson (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allow me to clarify: the site is indeed a hate site, operated by a banned user who evades the ban continuously, who attempted to disrupt the arbitration case, and who makes ad hominem attacks against editors who are even neutral about Matt Sanchez. That banned user is responsible for his or her actions. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Durova^Charge! 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is not a soapbox, then you shouldn't be soapboxing about PWOK's so-called "hate site," should you? Or is some soapboxing more equal than others? Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Allow me to clarify as well. The site in not a hate site. The user was banned based on conflicts with this particular article, which I would point out, we are still having after a year or more. Obviously it's not yet become clear that there are people here who refuse to allow Wikipedia to become a series of hagiographies. The fact that a notable person stuck their foot in their own mouth, is their problem not ours. Our project reports the evidence, we don't hide it simply because a LP wishes they hadn't said something. We do not allow Anne Coulter, George Bush, nor any other other BLP that level of leeway. The sources speak for themselves. Some people want to silence certain reliable sources, that level of censorship has no business here. Wjhonson (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If Matt Sanchez's conduct were the only issue, he would have been community banned months ago and the problem would be resolved. See the precedents cited in the opening nomination statement and site policy for the basis: comparison to a United States president is a straw man argument. Durova^Charge! 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Redirecting the argument is not helpful. Certain editors want to cite and quote only sources which *already* agree with their pre-conceived ideas, and discard others which do not. That is not the purpose of this project. We should be focusing on *which* sources are reliable sources, and that issue should be taken to RS not refactored for this one case alone. If the Alan Colmes (Radio) Show is not a reliable source for the fact that he admitted being a prostitute than we are all in serious trouble. Now we have to redact from five thousand articles statements the subject made about themselves even if confused or under stress or whatever the argument is supposed to be, which I fail to understand. Several well-sourced statements have been excised simply because he complained. Sanchez should be treated no differently than any other contentious BLP and yet he is being so differently treated, imho. Wjhonson (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Aleta (Sing) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • • • • Please review my past BLP AFD nominations. I support this for precisely the same reasons as the previous ones, with a few extra reasons to boot. I have no involvement in the content dispute, but I know a long term WP:NOT#Not a battlefield problem when I see one. Durova^Charge! 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability established and chock full of reliable sources. While I sympathize with the subject's desire to bury his past, he is notable for both his acting career and what he has been doing in the political field. And for the record, I have made no edits to the article and perhaps two to the talk page. Jeffpw (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The subject is of marginal notability, and has personally requested that we delete the article. We should honor his request. Per WP:BLP: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid." I've done extensive research on the Sanchez situation, and have experienced firsthand the battles on the article's talkpage. The article has been a magnet for SPA editors who are using it as a soapbox and Battleground, and as a tool with which to harass Sanchez, who has now threatened legal action. Further, some of the "Keep" comments above are from some of these same SPAs, so I recommend that the closing admin here take a look at contribution history when making their decision. To be clear: Though Sanchez does pass WP:BIO, he does it in a marginal fashion. He is not such a notable individual that we have to have an article on him. He was in a handful of porn videos, and has been in the news a few times, but per WP:BLP1E, that doesn't mean he's majorly notable. There has never been a third-party biography on him, in any medium. Further, deleting this article will help to de-escalate this dispute. Months of time have been wasted on the battles at the Matt Sanchez article, and the amount of attacks and harassment and speculative defamation that have taken place at the article's talkpage is simply staggering. The subject just wants to be done with it, and has requested that we delete the article, so let's just honor that and move on. --Elonka 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Elonka, I think you need to go back and look at the contributions history of everyone above you because not one of them is a SPA user so saying some of the "Keep" comments above are from some of these same SPAs is false. Every single person above you has significant contribution history to other articles and talk pages. Secondly, 41 porn videos is hardly a handful of porn videos. ALLSTARecho 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And anyone who knows the first thing about that industry knows how much footage gets reused. Per the dead trees standard I proposed when I nominated the Seth Finkelstein, Daniel Brandt, and Rand Fishkin biographies for deletion, no paper and ink encyclopedia is likely to carry an article about Matt Sanchez. Not even an encyclopedia of porn. If you can find one, I'll change my vote. Otherwise this page is more trouble than it's worth. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the standard? M-ercury at 01:06, January 14, 2008

Mercury, I explained it in every courtesy BLP deletion I've proposed. Marginal notability is nearly meaningless because it means too many different things to different people. So I sought something that's confirmable and not prone to slippery slope arguments. Durova^Charge! 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unfamiliar with the phrase, but I read to quick and now I realize that I can just go to those AFD's to understand it. Pardon the misunderstanding. Regards, M-ercury at 01:31, January 14, 2008

Ms. Dunin, Sanchez appears in more than 40 porn videos. Either that's more than a handful, or someone has big hands. He was also a prostitute, as verified by his own article at Salon.com and in his interview with Alan Colmes. The subject of an article shouldn't be allowed to dictate either its contents or whether there's an article. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Aleta (Sing) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aleta -- notability is clear, reliable sources abound, and the individual's desire not to be fully covered here shouldn't outweigh our duty to write a complete encyclopedia. And, for the record, I've never edited anything related to this individual. Ashdog137 (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources. Epbr123 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Aleta (Sing) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although I have not edited this article, I agree with everyone else: as long as we are being careful about BLP issues, and notability is being satisfied, thats all we need to care about. If Britney Spears wanted her article deleted too, we wouldnt do that as well. Legal threats should not dictate any of what Wikipedia does. We have always had the policy of saying no to legal threats. Maybe Jimbo should be asked about this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Britney Spears wanted her article deleted too, we wouldnt do that as well. What a ridiculous strawman argument. Britney Spears is not marginally notable. No one thinks that we should delete her article at her (hypothetical) request. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • IceColdBeer, it is not a 'ridiculous' argument, please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Sanchez doesnt seem marginally notable. According to RS, all you need are multiple non-trivial reliable sources. There are more than 2 of those in the reference section, e.g. marinecorpstimes.com,columbiaspectator.com,navytimes.com, mediamatters.org. He's also appeared on Fox News and other places. I dont think this is "marginal" notability though I agree, if it is found to be, it would be best to delete the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the number of reliable sources cited in the article. Article can be protected if necessary given BLP concerns. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and create a protected redirect to Matt Sanchez Controversy or a similar title, a new article confined to the controversy in which he was engulfed when his past was revealed by gay activists to discredit him. There is not enough reliably sourced information beyond the outing (critics who have edited Wikipedia have consistently deprecated references to his activities as an embedded journalist) and his three-year career as a porn actor produced no noteworthy films (not a single film in his filmography has a Wikipedia article). This article is by far the most contentious article in which I have been involved, and after informal mediation, an RFC, and an Arbcom case, there still seems to be little hope of resolving some of the core issues behind this article. Deleting it and starting over (with neither Sanchez nor the publisher of an attack site dedicated to personally destroying Sanchez editing on Wikipedia—they are both indefinitely blocked) with a different focus (an incident, rather than a half-assed biography) will do much to ratchet down the hostility level on the project. The level of hatred this article has engendered approaches the level of The Troubles and 9/11 conspiracy theory articles, and is not far behind the Armenia/Azerbaijan flailex. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but this article and its 12 pages of talk archives have been. Horologium (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  An interesting idea, but what was the "incident"? That he wrote columns in the New York Post and Marine Corps Times? That he was a gay porn star? That he appeared on multiple television shows? That he received an award while attending the Conservative Political Action Conference? That he was the subject of a Marine Corps inquiry about the gay porn acting? That he was a source for the Weekly Standard's investigation of Scott Beauchamp? That's all got reliable source coverage, and it's hard to say it was all one incident. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking primarily about the disclosure of his past (first revealed on a stridently leftist gay blog) and the fallout from it. *I* agree that the Beauchamp incident is important (and apparently, so did Franklin Foer, who singled out Sanchez in his editorial retraction of the whole Beauchamp affair), but the relevant citation were deleted from Matt Sanchez (and a ((fact)) tag was slapped on in its place) and Sanchez's critics have (repeatedly) removed every trace of his involvement from Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, which leads me to believe that it must not be terribly relevant. There is virtually no sourceable information about his life before the outing (despite his porn career, there is little in the way of reliable information, since the films were evidently non-notable; none have Wikipedia articles). His critics here on Wikipedia have been quite insistent that his current career is non-notable (because he writes for partisan sources such as The Weekly Standard and www.rightwingnews.com, which are not particularly notable or reliable), which means that nothing other than his porn career (and the escorting allegations) is acceptably sourced. That would seem to fall under BLP1E. If there had been an entry for Rod Majors or Pierre LaBranche (or for that matter, for Sanchez) prior to the outing, I wouldn't argue for deletion, but Matt Sanchez, the now-redirected Matthew Sanchez, and Rod Majors—created as a redirect— were all created within 30 hours of each other, after the blog outed him; a redirect from Pierre LaBranche came along 6 weeks later. Notably, several of the people who are arguing for retention are fairly open about their desire to keep this controversy on Wikipedia for partisan purposes; a look at some of the current discussions on Talk:Matt Sanchez (particularly Talk:Matt Sanchez#Work as an escort) might be illuminating. It appears that the only reason Sanchez was targeted in the first place was because he received an award at the same conservative political conference that Ann Coulter used a gay slur. Horologium (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The individual bits of his life do seem non-notable - he was a minor porn star, he was a marine, he writes a blog, he writes for magazines, he won a political award. There are plenty of minor porn stars, and marines, and bloggers, and journalists in the world. However, together, they add up to notability. There aren't many marine porn stars. There aren't many porn stars writing for conservative journals. (By the way, The Weekly Standard is certainly notable in and of itself; maybe not all of its contributors are.) Most important, whatever we think about him, we have to reflect what the world thinks about him; we have to reflect our reliable sources, and it's pretty clear that enough reliable sources have written enough about him that we should have some kind of article here. I see your point that most of Sanchez's notability comes from his "outing", but I can't see doing justice to the complexity of the coverage that he has gotten in an article merely on the outing. But I haven't been a participant in the struggle here. Give it a try, in your user space or something, if it keeps the important information and can reduce the drama here, we might be able to do it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Horologium, I added the fact tag in the lede because I was not finding anything from a RS to back up the Sanchez was involved with the Beauchamp controversy, you apparently know more about it per "*I* agree that the Beauchamp incident is important (and apparently, so did Franklin Foer, who singled out Sanchez in his editorial retraction of the whole Beauchamp affair)". If you could address the sourcing concerns here or on the talk page so that information could be correctly sourced it would help. Based on Sanchez's talk page behavior and other experiences it seemed like it was something he was inserting himself into rather than actually being a part of, the four sources holding up that material are all blogs which seems to nt hold up when the rest of the article needs better sourcing. Benjiboi 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. And the vast majority of sources in that article are total junk. There's about a half-dozen references that are appropriate; all the rest are blogs, discussion fora, YouTube videos of dubious authenticity, and partisan hatchet jobs from one side or the other. Media Matters for America and World Net Daily should not be used to substantiate anything. If they claimed the sky was blue, I'd have to get my eyes checked. Horologium (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Media Matters for America is that they are principally an archive of material from other places, especially videos. Exactly what from that organization about Mr. Sanchez do you distrust, or are you distrusting them simply because of their political slant? Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, further discussion on the talk page has convinced me that this current article has become a Coatrack, since any attempt to add information to the article that does not denigrate Sanchez is going to be loudly opposed by a small, vocal minority. I am aware that WP:COAT is an essay, but this is almost a perfect fit; no need to involve the tailor on this one. Horologium (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for providing that ref, as you can see i fully support it being added. I do, however, disagree about the cabal theory and, in fact, have seen a concerted effort by quite a few editors to work with Sanchez despite his unique style, to improve the article. I'm now convinced that once this latest round of drama is complete that the article will be improved as several new refs have been found thus negating the need for some of the circular conversations. Benjiboi 02:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, marginally notable biographies should be deleted at subject's request. --MPerel 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the marginal notability of the subject, we should honor his request. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject is most certainly notable. Even though his porn career wouldn't meet notability standards on its own, the fact that he is now a contributor at such ultra-conservative mainstream publications like The Weekly Standard makes him notable. I'd also like to note that the most egregious BLP violations were committed by the subject of this article. The subject was allowed to add poorly sourced, potentially libelous claims about other people to his bio. But the subject's BLP violations were never challenged by any of the administrators who are now rushing to his defense and pointing fingers at other editors.Reelm (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of notability to sustain an article. Involved in notable controversies, author for notable publication, appearances on notable talk shows, etc... Gamaliel (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Per Durova's "More Trouble Than It's Worth". That should actually be a criterion. This might just be the poster child for MTTIW. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems perfectly well-sourced to me. Notability established and all negative information sourced according to BLP. As for the "More Trouble Than It's Worth" argument do you really think that a guy who files complaints because he believes people called him stupid is going to leave those alone who he can't get along with because we bargain with him? Has Brandt gone away? Finkelstein? No. You are bargaining with the trolls and that is a dangerous path. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aleta and Economics Guy (and I think Wjhonson's proposal, below, makes excellent sense). Robertissimo (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For above reasons. --Eleemosynary (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established, with reliable sources. Matt's deletion request should not be given much weight: If it had been made when the page was new, then fine, but the context in which the request has been made (both with Matt having made legal threats and with an ArbComm decision pending), and the effort he has put into editing it massively reduce the weight that should be given to such a request. EdChem (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability established. Thank goodness "more trouble than it's worth" is not and will never become a policy, or people who don't like articles would be able to delete them just by causing trouble. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable at the very least as a pornographic actor who has been featured multiple times in mainstream media. However I think the deletion decision is not urgent and should be put on hold pending outcome of the pending arbitration.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The notability of the subject is borderline. As a pornographic actor he was appeared in some mainstream media but has won no awards or recieved the sort of third party recognition that would make him very notable - at the fringe of WP:PORNBIO. Similarly I don't think he has great notability as a journalist or member of the US military. These elements all have to be scraped together to produce what looks like an article, but the result is unsurprisingly a BLP minefield. Given that notability is borderline, there are serious BLP issues with the article and that the subject wishes it deleted, I think this article should be deleted. WjBscribe 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree that his writings and military career are non-notable but the gay porn star turned conservative award-winner after his actions at Columbia U sure seem to add up. Also agree, in part, that if we delete this than the story is exported to Rod Majors article so Sanchez's wish to remove his past, or more accurately, remove the aspects of his past he wishes weren't public while replacing them with things he wishes were, is denied. The reason this article is worse than before (not sure if I agree with that) is only because Sanchez himself has waged his own personal disinformation campaign and wasn't kept in check throughout the events. The anonymous IPs who vandalize can be dealt with and many editors have shown a great willingness to ensure that every word is accurate and that assertions are sourced. The only thing that has stood in the way of the article improving, IMHO, has been Sanchez, whose actions have resulted in the article being frozen until the arbcom is up. Based on his previous record I expect that this article will survive and the editors who have spent way too much time trying to reason with him will quickly correct the outstanding errors with Sanchez in some manner kept in check. Any editors new to this ongoing saga need only quickly look at the talk pages archives to see what has transpired thus far. Benjiboi 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability (though subjective) has been established. this guy has several interesting facets, that i'm sure will make for a fascinating character study by someone. --emerson7 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The news stories in the reference section are sufficient to establish notability. "More trouble than it's worth" isn't a generally accepted principle (almost every controversy on wikipedia is more trouble than it's worth). Fireplace (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we all, in our hearts know, that *if* this article is deleted, that an article will most likely be created by the porn editors at Rod Majors. And any simple google will reveal his true name of Matt Sanchez. Since this has been revealed in nationally published reliable sources, we cannot, in complete integrity prevent it's inclusion in his porn career article. It would then be just a small step back to the full-blown war again. It seems to me, quite natural, that we should instead, perma-ban Sanchez, and then work together on the article. Eighty-eight percent of all the disruption has been the direct cause of Sanchez' war. I'm sure if he were out-of-the-way, we could get back to negotiating the article in Good Faith using Reliable Sources. So I believe all of the above is and will be moot following ArbCom's decision to perma-ban him. Wjhonson (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this process is likely to finish within a week and the Arbcom case is not I find it hard to tie the two together. I feel we should keep that case in mind only and base our decisions on what this article can be. Benjiboi 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. On careful consideration of the sources, I'd say he's a person of marginal notability: that is, all else being equal, my opinion would be 'Weak Keep'. Many of the sources are irrelevant or have insignificant coverage (and a couple are broken), but a few of them do provide evidence of notability. However, there are additional factors to consider: (i) this article, for whatever reason, seems to be a magnet for edit warring and vandalism, and (ii) the subject of the article has requested to have it deleted. Neither of those factors would be sufficient to delete on their own; but in combination with each other and the relatively minor notability of the subject (i.e. we wouldn't lose much if this was deleted), they convince me that the best option here is deletion. Terraxos (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: if this isn't deleted, my second preference (which might get slightly more of a consensus) would be to merge this article into Columbia University. Sanchez's only real notability is tied up with the University, so this content might be best as a subsection of that article. Terraxos (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To address "for whatever reason, seems to be a magnet for edit warring and vandalism", is because his story is in the middle of the present-day US culture wars, gays in the miltary, free speech, gays/liberals vs. conservatives et al. Much of the vandalism and edit warring is due to the subject himself. I've seen many articles stabilize after the articles have been improved with good editing and sourcing, I expect this one to be the same. I can't imagine this article being merged into the Columbia University except as a sentence about their updating policy on veterans. Most of the media refs refere to him as a former gay porn star rather than as a current Columbia University student. Benjiboi 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It'd be equally silly to merge him at List of Columbia University people alongside six United States presidents, 39 Nobel Prize winners, three current United States senators (and tons of past ones), and 16 CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. That's why deletion is the commonsense alternative. They're actually notable; he barely is. Durova^Charge! 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Though clever and mildly cheeky, there's a bit of a failure in logic and imagination with that last comment I'm afraid. Certainly, merging Sanchez into List of Columbia University people would be quite silly at this point given the nature of that list as currently designed. Of course this does not mean that "deletion is the commonsense alternative." Were that the case, any Columbia graduate who had achieved notability outside of elite categories such as Nobel Prize winners, CEO's, Senators, and all the other mover-and-shaker subsections that are currently the sole components of List of Columbia University people could not have an article. But that's not the kind of encylopedia we have. Admittedly there is no current subsection on the Columbia list for "porn stars" or "bloggers" but that fact is hardly a good reason to delete this article. I'm sure there are any number of Columbia grads who blog and/or work in porn/worked in porn in the past and its only a matter of time before our "List of Columbia people" recognizes that fact.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the cause for his notability has past. All the incidents turned out to be relatively minor in the long run. Aatombomb (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sanchez is notable which is what is most important as far as I'm concerned. He made a pretty large splash in multiple media outlets even before he was outed (I remember this very distinctly apart from anything happening on Wikipedia). Perhaps his notability is mostly in the past as User:Aatombomb suggests, but notability is not something that expires. I am generally very loath to delete (and salt!, as some are suggesting) articles about notable people simply because the subject does not want an article and/or because the article is creating a bunch of annoying drama (the two seem to go together quite often). The more we do this kind of thing the bigger problems we'll create for ourselves down the road for reasons that I would hope are patently obvious. Those suggesting that the subject is only "kinda notable" and therefore we should just do what the subject of the article wants are not really standing on policy. If a person meets our notability standards--as this person clearly does I think--then as a general rule we should not delete their article. Whether they are Matt Sanchez or Al Gore is irrelevant--we cannot let "this isn't quite so important, and it's causing a headache" be a guide for how we write the encyclopedia. Of course there might be exceptions, but I don't even know specifically what those would be and I certainly don't see them here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the option of creating a similar article suggested by Horologium as Matt Sanchez Controversy. A full biography may not be possible, but Sanchez is a public figure, is promoting himself as a public figure, has addressed his past through mass media, and was present during a public statement made by Ann Coulter that represent a notable disconnect in the conservative priorities in the US. Wikipedia should not duck controversy because the subject of the article is attempting to spin his own past. From what I have read of the arguments surrounding the article, much of what Sanchez claims to suffer from is caused by his own hand. --Moni3 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but protect for a long period - read the article for why it's a BLP rubbish magnet. However, he's inarguably quite notable - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the restoration of the verified material about Sanchez's prostitution; with an accurate count of his porn videos (I've seen 41, 45, and 49 in recent days), and a videogrqaphy that's equivalent to the other porn videograqphies on Wikipedia; the addition of a section dealing with Wikipedia's own censorship of the article on half of Mr. Sanchez. This situation has been reprehensible. In particular, Wikipedia's conduct has been as bad as it gets and must be redressed. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Once the Arbcom case is resolved (likely after this process is resolved) the article's protection should roll back to allow consensus edits to ensue including sourced references to his escorting. Verifiability (using reliable sources) not truth dictates whether we can state how many porn videos he acted in, non-wiki sites can list over a hundred but if reliable sources only document 20 then we reflect that, same as what applies to all articles. There is no reason, and again, no reliable sources, to delve into perceptions of Sanchez's treatment or behavior on wikipedia so those interested would have to do their own original research on those matters. Benjiboi 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you've made up your mind to exclude facts, right? There is verified record (IMDB and IAFD) showing more than 40 gay porn videos with Sanchez's stage names in the cast. Only a Wikipedian determined to exclude facts could argue that this somehow isn't factual. Bear in mind that Wikipedia has a rule called "get it right." Maybe you overlooked it?Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can save your snarky comments and instead assume good faith as my record on this article has been to lean on sources and favor consensus. I have chaanged my opinion more than once when presented with a good source or compelling information. If those sources are seen as reliable and there is consensus to reference one or both than I would certainly support inclusion. I know IMDB isn't always seen as solid but for our use here could potentially be used. Benjiboi 02:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note to closing admin Tennessee Jed 4415 has been blocked indefinitely for attempting to post private and possibly hacked personal information about Matt Sanchez.[4] Durova^Charge! 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borderline notable (the sources really aren't that good), so if he wants it to be deleted, it ought to be. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Really? Marine Times, CNN, The Advocate and quite a few others all seem to easily pass wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Benjiboi 14:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The only CNN article I see referenced is about Ann Coulter, not Sanchez. If you look through the sources that really are devoted to him, they are quite poor. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The event being cited featured both Coulter and Sanchez and pretty much every other ref is about him so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the sourcing. Except for some blog posts, which in their defense he is a milblogger, I think they all support what they are being cited for and all seem to be reliable. Benjiboi 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notablilty established. — Save_Us † 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's notable. Reinoe (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoe (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability is well established. As in the Angela Beesley incident, we don't delete articles just because the subject doesn't like it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like an ideal article to keep but protect per David Gerard. We should have this protection option for problematic BLPs that make the notability cut by some margin, which this does. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: We should honor the user's request. If you wish to bring ethics into this matter, look no further than the golden rule. No user would like this brought upon themselves. Furthermore, per Durova's "More Trouble Than It's Worth". That should actually be a criterion. Objection2000 (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We don't delete articles or lower or chnage wikipedia's standards to suit the subject of an article. If Ann Coulter wanted her article deleted would we do so? No. I do agree that the subject of the article and all the ensuing drama is far more trouble than almost any article is worth but in the process I have also learned a lot about editing and was introduced to the Military Times as a source and refreshed my understanding of Don't ask, don't tell. Benjiboi 04:56, 19 January 2008 (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.