The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The citations are good enough for me and it is a scary article.. brr. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barresi[edit]

Paul Barresi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A permanently protected article that we're not allowed to edit for scary scary reasons has no place in Wikipedia. Not tagged for deletion because I can't. -- Gurch (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Scary article. My opinion is just to keep it as a stub. Delete everything except the prose. Also, this following comment should be taken into consideration:

It is incredible how many gay porn stars have tried to use Wikipedia for advertising purpuses. Mr. Barresi used to call up potential actors for his porn videos and tell them to log on to his Wikipedia article to learn all about him. -- THE PLEICANO SECTION was deleted as it was not sourced properly and many of the sources that were sited were self-published by Barresi himself! This is against Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia has also been abused as it was used by Barresi or some one acting as him to make threats to people that were in controversy with Barresi! this should be deledte not because it lacks interest but because it has been a channel for self-promotion and abuse!.

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 15:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I don't necessarily like it, but there's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia I don't like, and that's not a reason to delete anyway. Edit? Sure, but that ain't no AfD reason either. Scary? Weellll, not scary... but even if it were... that's not a reason to delete. So since there seems to be no reason to delete, I have to go with keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Subject seems notable from article and references. Nomination for AFD due to locked dispute seems quite POINTY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Dispute? There isn't a dispute, there's an article that can't be edited that nobody seems to care about. This is a wiki, the whole point of it is that the pages can be edited. If we have an article that has to remain permanently uneditable, as in this case, that defeats the whole point of having it on a wiki in the first place -- Gurch (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unlocking it is impossible, ever? May I inquire who pressed the lock button that no one on wikipedia can unlock? Reminds me of Make Love, Not Warcraft. NVO (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing scary about why the article can't be edited, it was protected by JzG with the note "Full prot while we work out GFDL issues, to avoid screwing up the history any worse". Instead of deletion a request for unprotection after discussion with the administrators involved in this page seems the way to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That was sarcasm, right? Please tell me it was... -- Gurch (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The basis of the nomination has nothing to do with the content of the article, and a discussion without an AfD banner on the article itself doesn't seem appropriate as the editors interested in the topic are unlikely to find it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, nothing vaguely resembling a policy based reason for deletion presented. Pointy nomination of an article with over 20 references cited. It's incredible how many carbon-based hominids have attempted to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, no reason to limit it to gay porn as an objection.Horrorshowj (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject clearly meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO ("Barresi earned a 2003 GayVN Awards nomination for "Best Non-Sex Performance - Gay or Bi" for Long Strokes"). Tabercil (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 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.