Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominik Trojan


 * 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 arguments that he fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO are clearly stronger. Note that WP:ARTIST #3 requires independent review, not just the existence of a collective body of work. Kevin (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dominik Trojan

 * – ( View  AfD  View  log  •    )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:1989luke, the creator, has  apparently been blocked for repeated creation of hoax  articles but this  article does not fall into that category.  There seem  to be  some independent  reviews which discuss this  actor specifically.  At  any rate, if  you're trying to determine whether he's notable or not, be  prepared to  see alot of penises.   --96.233.40.199 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO.   smithers   -  talk  01:10, 26  January 2010  (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the nominator's mentions. Dear  God... why? Cutno (talk) 01:29,  26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He has main roles in at least 39  published films and has directed two. He meets WP:ARTIST under the  criteria for a  collective body of work. If someone looks hard enough  they'll probably  find a reference to some sort of porn-award that will  satisfy WP:PORNBIO too. If this were not pornography  but, say,  horror film, this article would never be raised for deletion.   Ash (talk)  09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He  doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an   independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent  periodical  articles or reviews". Epbr123  (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These popular  films have had many reviews in gay interest magazines  (periodicals).  Appearing in so many films, it would be remarkable if  there were not  such reviews. A couple of references have been added to  the article.  Ash (talk)  23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (PORNBIO applicability) PORNBIO is for actors not directors. Though Trojan's notability is primarily as a pornographic actor, his  work as a director should be taken into account. Consequently PORNBIO  should not be the only consideration here. Ash (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think Ash  is correct and this article wouldn't be in AfD if the  boy had acted  with his clothes on.  We haven't proved that he meets  WP:PORNBIO criteria but we must not forget  that   Failure to  meet  these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be   included.  Major roles in 40 films globally  distributed equals  notability. --96.233.40.199  (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am suspicious as to whether the  person who uploaded the  accompanying photo really owns the copyright.  --96.233.40.199 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (photo) Checking the uploader's contribution history and the image  itself there  seems no particular reason to doubt that the upload is  genuine. A  false claim would mean faking the EXIF data, which seems  highly  unlikely in this case. Ash (talk) 10:43, 4  February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note:  This debate has been included in   the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion   discussions.  -- Ash  (talk) 09:24, 26  January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note:  This debate has been included in   the list  of Sexuality and gender-related deletion  discussions.  --  Ash (talk)  09:26, 26 January 2010  (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  The assertions being made  by 96.233.40.199 are plainly false.    JBsupreme    ( talk )   12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant roles in numerous  productions,  many under  the name of Eugene Procci. It must be remembered that porn  stars  rarely get coverage in mainstream press. He does seem though to  have  the attention of his genre  .    Schmidt,   MICHAEL Q.  04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability  isn't established by someone's Google hits or number of films they've   been in. See Arguments  to avoid in deletion  discussions. Epbr123  (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is  however found in significant roles in numerous productions and in   having a large genre fanbase. If he was not appreciated by someone   somewhere, his carrer would have ended after 1 film. The links were   posted to show the significant roles in multiple productions and to  show  genre interest in his work.  And please, though apparently  prevalent  for porn actors, WP:IDONTLIKE is also not a valid  argument or  attitude in AFD discussions... not in this one nor the  numerous others  you've nominated.  Schmidt,   MICHAEL Q.  10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please  focus on discussing the article, not myself. It's pointless accusing   people of WP:IDONTLIKE when they can just as easily  accuse you of  WP:ILIKEIT. Epbr123  (talk)  11:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering your recent  contributions  here,  perhaps you should try that yourself before expecting it from  others? Ash (talk)  11:54, 2 February  2010 (UTC)
 * To Epbr123:  I do not watch porn read porn or like  porn... and I have  voiced my personal dislike for porn at past porn  AFDs.  What I do like  and respect are the carefully considered  consensual guidelines created  by editors long before I ever heard of  WIkipeddia... and I do not  support the AFDing of any article that meets  guideline. However, thank  you for allowing me to again repeat my  dislike for the subject and  reaffirm my respect for the guidelines that  allow even such articles.  Schmidt,   MICHAEL Q.  05:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael do you know if any of the films this person has participated in  are considered to be "notable" (as defined by Wikipedia)??  I ask   because we regularly keep articles for seiyu who completely and  utterly lack  non-trivial  coverage due their voice acting career.  If I  can be convinced that his  role in a portion of these films is  significant, and that the films are  actually notable, I might be  persuaded to change my vote for the sake  of consistency and sanity.    JBsupreme    ( talk )   05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside form an Admin who is lightening their workload, perhaps let's get a  better informed input  from some of the other editors at WP:WikiProject Pornography, as  they may be far more willing  to spend time in research that requires  them to look at the images that  accompany the non-mainstream  media  searches, in presenting a list of genre-specific awards  and  genre-specific  sourcing that would show genre notability for his films  and thus his  body of work, and so expand the article.   Schmidt,   MICHAEL Q.  10:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)




 * Relisted to generate a more thorough  discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add  new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Cirt (talk) 22:12, 3 February  2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.