Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Rage


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Rage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced biography of a pornographic film actor, making no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:PORNBIO. He might be notable for having later been a director and producer of films for his own production company, but that would still depend on reliable source coverage and does not give him a "because he existed" freebie if adequate sourcing isn't there to get him past WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No WP:RS 2A02:C7D:5D30:8800:B8FF:3F79:468:521E (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment While I'm not familiar with the Rage or gay porn, he has quite a few hits on Google books where he has been described as "very famous"1 and a "pioneer filmmaker"2. The article creator has done an abysmal job sourcing the articles he's done, but this one is probably notable enough to keep.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I found some sources and brief mentions of him in two books, but this actor fails WP:PORNBIO and I believe that it fails WP:GNG as well. GNG assumes notability if the person "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Are there sources? Yes. Secondary, independent, and reliable sources? Yes. But... is there significant coverage? ...significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content?" The answer to this is no. Absolutely not. The sources I found outside of IMDB were simple mentions of his name in two novels about gay pornographic films and acting; they did not significantly cover him in-depth. In fact, they didn't cover him much at all. I took a look at both of the Google Books sources provided by Wikiuser20102011, and they also mention the actor's name once and do not provide any kind of in-depth significant coverage. Therefore, I believe that this actor does not have significant coverage, and hence fails WP:GNG.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Oshwah's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2015 (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.