Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson (pornographic actor)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dawson (pornographic actor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Poorly sourced BLP of gay porn performer who fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC) *Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Poorly sourced how? I see a number of good sources. Silver  seren C 08:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This user appears to be a single purpose account that goes around to AfD articles and votes delete with this same exact wording every time. Silver  seren C 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How do the sources not establish notability? Silver  seren C 08:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "Treasure Island’s Dawson Makes Hot Butt Magic" - NightCharm
 * "2008 Golden Dickie Award Nominations" - RadVideo


 * "Meat Packing" - Sex Herald
 * I found these three new sources and added them to the article. Silver  seren C 09:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has removed the sources listed above from the article, saying they are spam. Can another user please explain to me how they are spam? Silver  seren C 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is being needlessly tendentious and calling all of those spam seems unhelpful. They are correct though that our standards for external links (see WP:EL) likely don't support thos as external links. The best bet is to ensure each is considered a reliable source and use them as in-line citations instead. -- Banj e  b oi   11:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Benjiboi is hardly being candid. All three "sources" are retailer-created pages intended to sell product, and on their face fail WP:RS. There's nothing "tendentious" or "unhelpful" about describing self-evident marketing material as "spam," especially since these "sources" typically don't source article content in any nontrivial way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I'm with Silver; I have a hard time seeing what about this article is poorly sourced.  Ravenswing  21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Doubtful notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of what? Can you please be more specific? Silver  seren C 18:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I forgot to vote before. The sources that I have here and are already on the page are enough to establish notability, taking into account that porn actors do not have the same type of news as everyone else does (as you're not going to find news articles about them in mainstream newspapers.) Silver  seren C 18:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Within gay porn, barebacking is considered controversial. As such videos extolling the practice as Treasure Island does are seemingly shut out altogether. Ergo a new awards that recognize this genre have been created and apparently this is one of the big winners of the year. So it certainly meets PORNBIO and likely GNG as well. -- Banj e  b oi   11:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only "evidence" of notability is that the subject may have received, or appeared in videos which received, "awards" that various retailers and video companies have created to market their own products. That isn't enough to satisfy WP:PORNBIO or the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But they are still legitimate, notable awards, regardless of their reason for being created (or what you believe their reason is), so they do still satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Silver  seren C 05:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo, you can denigrate the awards all you want. But we as contributors are not in the position to judge the quality of the awards. The awards were properly given by the organizations in question, and properly reported by neutral third-party publications. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's utter nonsense. There's a clear consensus that marketing gimmicks dressed up as awards don't amount to evidence of notability, whether they're given by vanity presses to their authors or porn marketers to their own products. And despite what you say, there's no evidence that, for example, the "Spoogie Awards" have been "reported by neutral third-party publications." Neglible Google hits, no GNews hits, no GBooks hits. The case against these "awards" indicating notability was made pretty clearly by Benjiboi, who acknowledges that the awards were fabricated since the products involved weren't winning any legitimately notable awards.  As for Wikipedia contributors not judging the "quality" of awards and distinctions, you're dead wrong. It's done all the time. WP contributors have decided that Rhodes Scholarships don't confer individual notability, or various British crown honours, or White House presentations, or most military honors,or high school and collegiate prizes, or many other forms of recognition. Nothing exempts sex workers from this principle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no consensus on whether these awards are marketing gimmicks, Benjiboi's claims notwithstanding. The awards you mention (Rhodes scholarships, for example) have each been considered on their merits, extensive discussion made, and consensus reached. That's not true of the awards mentioned in the Dawson article. Absent such consensus-building, good faith must be assumed and the awards accepted as evidence of notability. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More nonsense. The burden of proof rests with the editor asserting notability, and here it's nowhere near met. You're not entitled to add whatever promotional rubbish you find into BLPs absent a consensus against the specific item. Quite the reverse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Week keep I think these claims of notability could be called borderline, suspect, or marginal. However, given the specialized nature of the genre, the awards satisfy anybio1 if verified. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO, meets general notability guidelines given the citations already included in the article. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep meets PORNBIO; requests for better sourcing are not a rationale to delete articles. Ash (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:PORNBIO and has many reliable citations. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Meets WP:PORNBIO, has many reliable citations, and is a notable porn/pop-culture figure who also is sometimes referenced in discussions of condomless sex in the (gay) porn industry. His '50 Load Weekend' video became an internet meme as per '2 Girls, 1 Cup' due to the outrageousness of the concept. In summary: far from trivial, the entry serves as a important sociological reference. Engleham (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Many reliable citations"? Not so. The article has 8 references. Five of the eight go to retailer promotional pages, which are at best dubious under WP:RS. One source is a blog, that's not appropriate for a BLP. The other two appear to be self-published sites, albeit somewhat elaborate ones. If there's an "important sociological reference" here, there ought to be a genuinely reliable source (which typically wouldn't be wallpapered with sexually explicit advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just added an AEBN award and BBVA (for a video in which Dawson was the title star). Hope I got the formatting correct. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned and cited in the article; linking multiple times to the same retailer promo pages is more in the nature of spamming than referencing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't intend that. Many (if not most) other actors in this category have separate sections for their awards (as per PRONBIO, to keep clear their notability).  I can remove the links but the section should remain, yes? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Dawson is a very common name and there are no intersections from reliable independent secondary sources (see: WP:FRANKIE)). Assuming that all information belongs to the same person is WP:OR. We should be really careful  in cases of WP:BLP because WP:OR and WP:SYNTH may actually be verifiable (WP:FRANKIE). According to WP:BLP: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." "Do not use primary sources, such as public records that include personal details, unless a reliable secondary source has already published the information" Algébrico (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm not misunderstanding, are you suggesting that there is a strong possibility that the porn actor named "Dawson" who starred in Treasure Island Media's "Dawson's 20-Load Weekend" is not the same "Dawson" from Treasure Island Media's "Dawson's 50-Load Weekend (part 1)" or the same "Dawson" from Treasure Island Media's "Dawson's 50-Load Weekend (part 2)" or the same "Dawson" from Treasure Island Media's "Loaded (Dawson's Cream Pie Video)"? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 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.