Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Smothers, Jr.


 * 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 consensus below is that the sources are sufficient to establish notability under the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dick Smothers, Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet notability for Pornographic actors and models, he never won an award, has not unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, etc. Also, being related to someone famous does not make you notable. Saladacaesar (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: What the nominator writes is true (no awards, no inheritance of notability, no unique contributions), but the subject, nevertheless, passes WP:GNG as he received significant coverage in reliable indipendent sources as CNN, Philadelphia Daily News, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer and more, available here and here. I could argue he also passes WP:PORNBIO#4, but it is not needed.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Failing a SNG does not mean that one canot pass the GNG. User:Cavarrone has it correct in that we measure notability either through coverage in multiple reliable sources OR through verifiability of an assertion described in an SNG. Those two parts of WP:N are not mutally exclusionary. A topic can meet either or both and be notable. The article does need some sandblasting, but such addressable issues rarely require deletion of demonstrably notable topics.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, good deal of discussion in secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability for Porno and GNG. Any articles about him are only in relation his famous dad. He has no notability outside that. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Notability is not inherited and he only has minimal coverage due to his father, none of the sources cited establish notability. JoshyDinda (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Notability is not inherited" means that being related to someone notable does not automatically confer notability. However, Junior has independent reliable coverage about him which satisfies the GNG even if the only reason is because he's someone's son. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep while not truly famous, there is some notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2011 (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.