Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Kage


 * 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, sources aren't reliable enough, notability not demonstrated. Feel free to repost if you can find better sources. NawlinWiki 03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethan Kage

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This person appears to be non-notable, and there is no evidence that he meets the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Prod removed with comment "removing prod, I'll fix the article later", but with no indication of how this person is notable. FisherQueen (Talk) 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Within gay culture, often times porn stars become gossip subjects, and become known for more than just their on-screen presence. There is an anonymous editor that has been sending quite a few of these articles to deletion and I don't have time to get the appropriate information for each of them at the same time.  I would appreciate a bit more time to get things done.  I can assure you that there are a few articles written about him, and thus satisfies WP:BIO.  Thank you.  -Todd ( Talk - Contribs ) 21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. He's right; I have seen quite a few porn actors tagged for speedy deletion lately.  I did change the speedy-deletion tag to a prod to give you time to add the needed sources, because I wasn't convinced he met the speedy criteria, but when a prod is removed before the problem is solved, my practice is to send the article to AfD. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, first off, FisherQueen is not anonymous. Second off, you haven't provided a lick of policy in your assertion that this person is notable. Can you provide any reliable sources? The Evil Spartan 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct, FisherQueen is not the anonymous user I was referring to; he is the administrator who responded to the speedy delete request the anonymous user put up. As part of the gawker media, it looks like Fleshbot meets the requirements of WP:RS, and doing a quick search, yields and this .  The previous editors have hinted at more, and I think a bit of searching will be required to find them, but the previous articles should be enough to meet the minimum requirements of WP:BIO.  -Todd ( Talk - Contribs ) 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, if it had refrences I would say keep. But since it has no refrences and is about a living person it needs a speedy delete . Callelinea 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)KEEP, after careful examination on my prejudice on Porn actors, I refelected that Porn is big business, gay porn is big business and porn actors are notable in their professions and if they are nominated for awards or win awards in their field they are even more notable. So I vote to keep. Callelinea 19:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no references or assertion of notability. Terraxos 02:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO.  Nothing found on gayvn.com which indicates notability either Corpx 07:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't meet criteria for notability under WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO.  71.127.229.14 12:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - if FleshBot and QueerMeNow are reliable sources, then this article meets WP:BIO. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fleshbot looks like a porn rumor site and QueerMeNow says its a blog, so I dont think either are reliable sources. Corpx 08:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - . Google hits for many porn stars, even non-notable ones, often range in the high tens of thousands. This man doesn't even hit 600 - the mentions are only on gay porn-cruft like sites. The Evil Spartan 20:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Corpx, Terraxos, 71.127.229.14, The Evil Spartan. Subject is not notable.  Strongly disagree with Callelinea: Yes, porn and gay porn are big business, but simply being part of a big business does not confer notability, nor do articles from gossip or blogs.  If this actor had been nominated or had won an award that would be different, but as far as I know he hasn't been nominated for nor won anything.  If you have found evidence to the contrary, let us know.  72.76.102.253 01:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and work on it. 1.  Various editors have asked for time to work on this article to bring it to an acceptable standard.  2. 2 reliable sources have been named 3.  Google is not god and nor is it a reliable source in and of itself.  People citing google page counts as a means for or against deletion drives me nuts.  do some actuall reseach.  CaveatLectorTalk 11:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, CaveatLector. I see just one editor has asked for more time; two sources have been named but neither is reliable (as also noted by Corpx): one is gossip, the other, blog; and, the number of hits a subject scores on a google search is a measure of interest in, and, hence, notability of, the subject, especially as compared to others in the same industry (as noted by The Evil Spartan).  And those hits are to gay porn-cruft like sites.  It's simple: Ethan Kage is not notable.  Delete this article.  72.76.2.40 12:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Refresh my memory, why are leading sites in their fields discounted as reliable sources because of labels that you are placing on them? The point is that there IS information AND sources out there to be used in this article.  IHAVENTHEARDOFIT is not a check for notability (nor for reliability for that matter), and if we judge information by how many google hits something gets, we wouldn't have talked about French military victories at all before google fixed its google bomb problems. CaveatLectorTalk 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, and IHAVEHEARDOFHIM and WP:ILIKEIT aren't good reasoning either. The fact is that there are paltry mentions of this man, and he abysmally fails WP:PORNBIO. This comes nowhere near the mentions by "multiple non-trivial third part sources" - thus not passing WP:BIO either. And that is good policy. The Evil Spartan 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont believe that rumor sites and and blogs are the leading sites in that field Corpx 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The sites being used to attempt to assert notability are gossip and blog -- it's what they are. Gossip and blog are not reliable sources, whether or not they're "leading sites in their fields" -- which neither of these is.  Nothing better can or will be found because there's nothing else.  This guy's not notable and he doesn't warrant an article.  72.76.98.153 18:12, 9 July 2007 (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.