Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Powers (3rd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Alec Powers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per decision to overturn and relist at Deletion review/Log/2010 February 5. Abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As well as the previous justification in the last deletion nomination, using the guidance of ARTIST for his notable and multiple award-winning body of work, he passes PORNBIO due to multiple nominations in multiple years. Additional sources now added. It appears that "special" rules apply to gay porn actor biographies, based on the recent spate of zealous AfD nominations of porn stars of the 80s/90s a number of editors are pushing for deletion in disregard of the guidance of BEFORE or ATD. Such enthusiasm for deletion of reasonably sourced articles with reasonable prospect of improvement does not benefit Wikipedia. Ash (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources found are either trivial or non-independent. Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO as the awards went to the films, not him. Epbr123 (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be ignoring the sources referenced here in your enthusiastic deletion campaign. The nominations were for him, not the films. Reports by J.C. Adams are independent of the publishers or the porn star and the nominations that satisfy PORNBIO were for well-known erotic industry awards. Considering how many such articles you have raised for deletion and !voted for deletion, I guess that for whatever reason, you are beyond logical reasoning when is comes to gay pornography. You may find the guidance of NPOV helpful. I genuinely believe that when biographies such as Paul_Carrigan, the second most credited actor in the history of gay pornography, are removed with your over-literal interpretation of PORNBIO, then something has gone seriously wrong with the process for assessing notability and it needs discussion and refinement. Your hard-line approach of purging Wikipedia of these icons of gay sexuality of the 80s/90s does not make for a better encyclopedia. Ash (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you've now added some nominations, so change to keep per PORNBIO. Just for your information, cast listings and sources that solely consist of "Alec Powers appears in three separate ads, one for a local video outlet, another for a homo bookstore and the last pushing trading cards featuring gay porn models" do not count as significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources for nominations existed in the article before you made your delete comment, it would help if you based your comments on the facts of the article rather than your impression. As a clarification, I made no claim that his work as an advertising model was "significant coverage". The particular reference adds value to his biography and gives an impression of how his modeling work has some (gay) cultural impact, albeit probably limited geographically. Ash (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You added the nominations while I was assessing the sources and composing my comment. So you don't deny the sources are either trivial or non-independent? Epbr123 (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be creating argument for the sake of it. AfD discussions are not a forum, I do not expect to have to point this fact out to an admin. My previous statement stands, the sources supporting notability relate to well-known awards, are independent of the publishers and actors involved and written by independent journalists. I suggest you take a rest from your obvious deletion campaign (see WikiProject Pornography/Deletion) and rather than damaging Wikipedia do something that improves the articles that exist here. Ash (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per cogent arguments of User:Ash.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources in the article show that he passes WP:PORNBIO. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adequately sourced and notability demonstrated. ~ mazca  talk 20:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Content and sourcing indicates notability has been met. -- Banj e  b oi   15:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Ash and others. He has a notable body of work, thus meeting the requirements for an article.   D r e a m Focus  20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.