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 delete. The debate is leaning that way, but more importantly, do no harm. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Cole[edit]

Sebastian Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page deletion was requested by the page's author at the apparent request of the subject; however, because other authors have contributed, WP:CSD#G7 doesn't technically apply. IMO, the subject is of such marginal notability that we should respect the request for deletion, especially given the possible BLP concerns, but bringing it here for consensus one way or the other.  – iridescent 16:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The original page creator has been informed of the existence of OTRS, so the bio subject can confirm their identity and intent to remove the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:N (specifically meets WP:PORNBIO) Mayalld (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin The only part of WP:PORNBIO I see him possibly meeting is "a well-known award", but that was as one of six other winners of said award that year so IMO it's marginal at best. Aside from the award itself, the only source for this article is his entry at IAFD, which lists only his date and place of birth and a list of films; there is no source for any of the biographical information given in the article. If kept, this needs to either be sourced, or stubbed down to just a list of films, as at the moment it's a BLP violation from start to finish. – iridescent 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I think we should abide by the request. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Very marginal notability and several similar articles have been deleted for the same reasoning. Tatarian (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Tatarian, Could you point out one or (better) two examples of such so that we can do a real comparison against a real case? An example from the adult movie industry would be best, but I suppose anything comparable would do. Thanks. --KDS4444^Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ginger_Jolie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination) are examples of people who have had their pages deleted upon request. Tatarian (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet the GNG, is of marginal notability and subject seems to want it deleted. RMHED (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have nothing against deleting an article like this, but the person's identity should really be confirmed through OTRS before the deletion happens. We don't want some anti-porn activist deleting bios by pretending to be the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Author's Response: 1.) I agree with iridescent regarding the irrelevant biographical information-- if the article is eventually kept, this should be removed (and I would take no offense). 2.) I also agree with MacGyverMagic that the identity of those involved should be verified to ensure the sincere intentions and to verify that no anti-porn activist is trying to meddle with Wikipedia 3.) If this entry is removed, it will cause the return of a gap in the Wikipedia list for winners of the AVN awards. This entry originally filled that gap. What, if anything, should be done to prevent the recreation of a vacuum of information there? KDS4444^Talk --KDS4444 03:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Marginal notability even before the request for deletion. Chicken Wing (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In my opinion, this article meets WP:N if by a narrow margin, but that plus the subject's request make me lean delete. If this entry were any more notable, I would urge checking the request through OTRS. FlyingToaster 21:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - privacy concerns of the subject in a case such as this must be respected. The fact that the subject is only arguably notable should also allow us to be more sensitive to the concerns. – Toon^(talk) 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PORNBIO and WP:N. GayVN award and appearing in 20+ porn videos meets the notability requirements. If specific biographical information can't be sourced, and it really is the subject requesting deletion of that information, then delete that information via normal editing, but the article, per se, should be kept. Also keep per the argument that this helps complete the Gay AVN awards listing. Even two of the delete votes admits it meets WP:N, even if narrowly or marginally. — Becksguy (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The number of videos doesn't matter, since anyone can make one, but winning the award *does* mean he passes notability. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Satyr, point taken. — Becksguy (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Author's Second Response: I have been going over the notability guidelines and have reached the current (if hardly final) conclusion: according to Wikipedia standards, a marginally notable person who has requested removal of their entry should have their request respected. Great. However, while Sebastian Cole's notability may seem limited, the fact is that he won (with however many other people-- that's irrelevant) a national, competitive award in a recognized category, and while "only" winning one such award may make him seem "marginally" notable, it makes him far more notable than someone who got, say, an honorable mention. Inasmuch as Wikipedia is intended as a repository first and foremost for notability, this individual meets that criterion (though he may want to string me up personally for saying this about him, and probably will once he reads this). Wikipedia has decided that winners of GayVN awards are sufficiently notable to have their names (their "stage" names, mind you-- Sebastian Cole is not this actor's real name) listed on the GayVN page. Given that, and regardless of the individual's request (I realize this must seem very confusing, as I am the person who originally authored the page and am now speaking here on behalf of the actor who would like it removed), the complete removal of this entry recreates an information vacuum on Wikipedia which, if not filled in now and accurately will probably be filled at some point soon by someone (if not me). As a counterexample, Becoming Playboy's "Pet of the Month" (see discussion [[1]] is not a genuinely competitive award and does not by itself merit notability; winning (and even winning and sharing) an award for "Best Group Scene" IS a competitive award, and this individual WON (yes, shared) it. This seems to be the simplest reason for keeping the entry, albeit in a pared-down and very impersonal format, which is how his adult film career is already recorded in other places on the Internet. If Wikipedia had decided long ago that the adult film industry was unworthy of encyclopedic consideration, then this entry would obviously be inappropriate... Given that Wikipedia has made a different choice (by long-established consensus), then this is not the case. Even if Sebastian tears me a third corn shoot when all is said and done (let me re-assert that I am personally completely ambivalent about this page-- if it stays, I get credit for contributing to the world of knowledge that exists on Wikipedia but may lose a friendship; if it goes, the world of knowledge will be darker but Sebastian won't be upset with me-- I really should have checked with him first, I know, and I'm in a pickle now because I didn't, but whatever, that's my issue). I am trying to reach a reflective and Wiki-consistent conclusion that does not take any of my own intentions into consideration, and right now I guess I am leaning more towards keep based on the simplest and most internally consistent argument I can come up with. Yes?? -- KDS4444^Talk--KDS4444 15:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful comment. Kudos. We can always keep the article, but strip the biographical details. — Becksguy (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think we have to move away from a belief that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are solid, immovable rules for inclusion. These guidelines merely provide help to show what sort of thing is and is not acceptable - it's not a court of law, precedents don't apply - it's about consensus. It's not a case of simply looking at what it says in the rulebook - this is the dignity of another human being we are talking about, and an argument based on the notability guidelines alone won't cut it. Remember: Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Let's allow this guy the privacy and dignity he has requested. – Toon^(talk) 16:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject doesn't want an article, he's of marginal notability. Have some respect. Our project is not going to suffer for not having this bio. The world will be okay. لennavecia 16:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Author's third (final) comment: "Fine by me". iridescent, Can you go ahead and remove? This page has been up for awhile, and though I have no doubt that someone someday will recreate this entry, and though several people have argued for its inclusion, perhaps now is simply not the time. We are human, we can choose. Sebastian would rather not have a Wikipedia entry, and in the end, above all desire for accuracy and intention towards completeness, maybe this deserves more respect than anything. -- KDS4444^Talk

--KDS4444 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete; this, again is another case which illustrates why verifiability and not "notability" (in the sense of importance) ought to be our inclusion criteria. The GayVN is a significant award, and it is a worthy ambition for an encylopaedia to have entries on every winner. However, all we seem to be able to verify here is that the individual won the award, and a few incidental details from the IAFD. I've looked for reliable sources that include some detail about this individual's life, and could not find anything, WP:GNG-fulfilling or not. Although I firmly believe that moralizing about what the ethical thing to do in these situations has no place in an encyclopaedia, we cannot have BLP's whose basic content is unverifiable, because to do so is a disservice to our readers as we would be propagating bad information. I would much rather that the first Google hit is the straightforward, minimalist IAFD entry rather than a speculative Wikipedia article of questionable veracity. So, the ideal thing to do here would be to redirect to List of GayVN winners, where a single verifiable line of information could be included, but in the absence of that list, and of a minimal amount of coverage in reliable sources, we must delete, "notability" be damned. the skomorokh 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per SatyrTN's input (it was said best...and first!). Ecoleetage (talk) 03:13, 1 December 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.