Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Sagat's Incubus


 * 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   redirect to François Sagat. A lengthy discussion that has led to fairly standard result. No one in the discussion challenged the director's notability, while there has been no convincing evidence that the sources prove notability of the film itself. While the discussion waxed and waned, I think that the ultimate consensus was the reliably sourced material be summarized at the director's article. Since that has occurred, I have simply closed this as redirect. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

François Sagat&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFILM, text borders on the promotional. Negligible GNews coverage, and what's there is mostly presskit rewrites. All sourcing, referencing, and external links are promotional. Porn puffery if not outright spam. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Incubus is significant film because it is the directoral debut film of a well-known porn artist François Sagat who with this film started working behind the camera as film director, producer and creative director. These phenomenon should be taken if significant specifically to the gay porn or general porn industry rather than as a general film release, particularly as it signifies a whole new career direction for this truly iconic artist -now director. This is also evident in the producing company promoting it with the director's name in the title calling it François Sagat's Incubus rather than just Incubus for example. Meanwhile I have added more mainstream references to reinforce Incubus' significance as a valid Wikipedia article. werldwayd (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, has received coverage in multiple sources, and is film by notable actor/director/producer. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's all very well to claim that coverage exists, but the fact is that there's negligible independent coverage in reliable sources. While nine sources are provided in the article, seven are overtly promotional, provided by the film's producers or others associated with it, and the other two are fancrufty blogs whose content borders on the promotional. Significant xhunks of the article text are barely disguised repackaging of PR material; compare the article's "a 2-part gay pornographic film co-directed and produced by French iconic pornstar François Sagat, his first as a film director and producer. Incubus, conceived, written, costumed, creatively directed by Sagat and co-directed and mentored by Brian Mills was shot in San Francisco for release in two parts by TitanMen." with the press release's "The film is Sagat’s first foray behind the camera in the role of Creative Director. The first of the two part series of films will release mid-December as TitanMen’s holiday blockbuster film. Incubus was conceived, written, costumed, art directed and stars the world’s most iconic gay pornstar, Francois Sagat." Not to mention that the article's "The film is an artistic, hypnotic journey that follows François Sagat's journey into a macabre world, never knowing if it's real or just the result of tormented dreams he has. Half-man, half-satyr, the two realms of Sagat's psyche battle it out on the screen" is virtually a verbatim copy of the same press release's "The film follows his journey into a macabre world, never knowing if it’s real or just the tormented dreams within his head. Half- man, half-satyr the two realms of Francois Sagat psyche battle it out on the screen." Not quite bad enough to speedy as a copyvio, but more than enough to establish that this is just warmed-over hype for a commercial product with no significant, independent coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These excerpts can always be edited further or removed outright from the article in a clean-up that can take 5-10 minutes of a fellow editor's time and leaving the more essential elements. In fact I will reword those offending excerpts so that they are not grounds for deletion. What we are interested in is the subject matter after all, not some "promotional" detail. To address this I have voluntarily removed the objectionable texts from the article werldwayd (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Paraphrased promotional content is still promotional, and you've acknowledged that you created the article from promotional sources that fail WP:RS. And rather than genuinely fixing the article, you've just toned down the most egregious examples and still haven't provided any RS references. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (strinking my "keep". See my agrument toward "redirect" below) as verifiably the directorial debute of an iconic porn personality. I dislike the topic, but removing and/or toning down of problematic language and format is quite often an adressable issue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. That argument has nothing to do with applicable policies and guidelines. The claim of the director's "iconic" status is sourced only to press releases promoting the film. An article that began as a barely disguised cut-and-paste from press releases can't be salvaged if you "address" the problem by tinkering slightly with the language and pretending that press releases are independent coverage. You don't make any argument that the film staisfies NFILM or the GNG, and tracking down a few passing mentions in unreliable sources in languages you don't read hardly demonstrates that reliable-source coverage exists. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find it a disgusting topic, but we are not to judge notability based upon personal likes or dislikes. As for "iconic", it is found for the director in that he himself has wide coverage in multiple reliable sources, some of the many being outside his genre. And that some sources are non-English is not a consideration, as even the poorest google or babble translation shows the depth of coverage of the director for his work is usually more than trivial.  It being the directorial debut of an iconic actor, disgusting as his chosen field may be to some, meets WP:NF for "The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."  The applicable guideline explains that a topic related to film may not (always) meet the criteria of the general notability guideline and encourages then that we consider other aspects apart from the GNG. It is hubris to claim that it being Sagat's directorial debut is somehow not significant involvement by a notable person.  And while I may personally feel Wikipedia would be fine without porn topics, we do not censor content and instead judge them by established policy and guideline.  The project is better served by proactively addressing issues, even if an editor or two might feel the issues absolutely, positively can not or should not be addressed. That's not how we improve the encyclopedia for its readers. We do not expect nor demand world-wide non-genre coverage for a genre topic, but I can grant though, that a merge and redirect to the dirctor's article is also a reasonable consideration, if it is determined that the film itself lacks enough independent sources.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More nonsense and deliberate evasion. For all that you natter on about censorship, porn and feelings, you never actually address the notability of this just-released porn project. There's no significant, independent coverage of the release, and you don't cite or identify any; just adding different iterations of a press release to the articles as "references" doesn't cut it. And the closest thing to "hubris" (a word you clearly misunderstand) is your own citation of an essay you wrote yourself a few weeks ago, complete with shortcut, as though it represented the consensus of community opinion. Wikipedia doesn't shill for porn studios, and that's all this article amounts to. You don't address that problem, or improve the article, or provide a shred of genuine evidence that this video is notable. Just pointing to a list of Ghits doesn't count, as you well know. The video fails NFILM, and has no significant coverage beyond promotional sources. The article began as little more than a cut-and-paste copyvio from press releases; putting lipstick on that pig doesn't affect its essential nature, And not all your handwaving and tossing tacky innuendo in my direction can change that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you assert that it being Sagat's directorial debut is somehow not significant involvement by a notable person? The essay section I linked takes most of its text directly from the guideline it seeks to explain. You need not agree with it, as it is only a essay after all, but it does seek to offer clarity where clarity is lacking. And I most specifcaly did speak toward this film's meeting notability as it being the debut work of a genre-notable actor, even if a new release.  Getting past the first few paragraphs of WP:NF we find that guideline specifically stating "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. Some inclusionary criteria to consider are:" and then number 2 following that instrucstion is "The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career" and is itself follwed by "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there,", which is why I also spoke above toward a merge and redirect. So please please do not claim I did not speak about how this topic might meet WP:NF, as I most sepecifically did do so. And correcting the perceived problems of the article's original version through regular editing is exactly as editing policy instructs, and not nonsense. I have pointedly avoided almost all of your recent AFDs of porn topics because you tend to make actual dicussion most difficult unless someone agrees with you... but in this instance, you are too incorrect to simply let it slide without addressing the issue or offering a guideline and policy supported opinion of my own... even when I dislike the topic under discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another round of nonsense and evasion, with a signal-to-noise ratio approaching zero. The article remains bereft of reliable, verifiable sources on every salient point. Your insistence that the third-level, maybe-this-might-still be notable criteria trump the failure to satisfy NFILMS, the failure to meet the GNG, and the complete absence of reliable sources regarding the video itself is incompatible with relevant Wikipedia standards, and in particular the NFILMS caution that "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage." Community practice and consensus in this area have been long-established, durable and, until now, unchallenged: the mere fact that a person notable enough to merit a WP article was involved in a porn video does not make that release notable. There are no reliable sources, just promotional puffery, supporting the claim you've parroted that Sagat is an "iconic" figure; in fact, there aren't even any reliable sources cited that the video is his debut directorial effort -- perhaps it is, but given the hardly unknown, extensive use of pseudonyms in this industry we can hardly be sure. Given the lack of RS coverage on this point, it's clearly inappropriate to claim that a fact(oid) considered beneath mention in reliable sources somehow establishes Wikipedia notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect In looking beyond current states, I still contend that article issues are more often addressable than not, but as pertinant non-crufty, non-hype, neutral and sourced information that does not contain any of the words or phrases or sources to which the nominator here has taken issue, have now been added through regular editing to the Sagat article, I would be okay with a result of redirect of the current article. As preserving the pertinant information has now been done, I would but qualify my refirect with a proviso that there should be no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. While the noise ratio in porn article deletions often becomes too high, the nominator and I can agree on some things after all. And in a sidenote, and as a result of this edit, discussions of post-AFD merge has been rendered moot.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

delete, its simply not noteworthy,no coverage in independant media 125.239.109.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC). — 125.239.109.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Keep per Schmidt, AFD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schmidt --62.163.152.44 (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - As noted by the nominator, sourcing is inadequate as it either uses press releases or sources that only paraphrase the press releases. As for the "significant directorial debut film" argument, I find this unconvincing. If there were better sourcing or notability possibilities elsewhere, it may tip the scale towards a keep, but on its own?  He's not that significant.  Being talked about in one sub-genre of movie-making does not equate to general notability. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * merge I think this content should be merged into the artists article, as the content is not too long as to dominate the subject, and is notable primarily for its association with the artist. This is in accordance with the notability of films criteria "The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.   An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." I do not believe the "clutter" criteria is met in this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * mmm, no prejudice against this solution. Cavarrone (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep While this isn't a subject that I care to read about, I agree with Schmidt that NF supplementary #2 is met here. A merge may also be possible, I'm on the fence about whether it would fit well with the parent article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with this argument, which appears plausible on the surface, is the utter lack of supporting evidence that the film "is a major part of his/her [ie, Sagat's] career." The applicable section of WP:NFILMS stresses that the claims must be "supported with reliable sources" and that "The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant". Neither the article nor the previous keep !voters have presented anything other than promotional sources, PR copy, and the occasional individual pornblog as evidence of notability, grossly failing WP:RS and fundamental principles of notability. It's also important to keep in mind that NFILMS provides that even meeting primary criteria "is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film." and that consensus practice with regard to porn releases has been not to create articles on individual porn videos simply because a person involved with a video is notable enough to merit his/her own article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As the actor's bio page exists, would you support a merge? I think the sources (while definitely weak) would support a section in his bio page. (This would obviously be dependent on the "keep" editors not expanding the content past what would fit on the page - if it were expanded to the point that forking were neccessary, then I think the source/notability arguments are entirely valid. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought about it some more, a Merge without prejudice toward a future split sounds good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PRESERVE I would support a partial merge and redirect to the filmmaker's article, without prejudice for recreation when have a few more sources speaking about it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @HW I took this as a reliable source, though I had to read it on google translate.
 * @Gaijin, not sure, but that's definitely something I'm open to. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support partial merge and redirect per  Schmidt, . Actor/director is notable, film may be, but does not have sufficient RS coverage to date. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * merge with the article on the director, per MQS. Seems like appropriate coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep. I can't remember ever seeing an AFD relisted when it gets as much discussion as this one did and when the participants were so clearly in agreement.  Consensus was obviously in favor of keeping, so relisting is effectively a renomination, and we don't permit renominations of AFDs that have been so recently closed as keep.  This is entirely without comment on the merits or demerits of the article, which I've not read and about which I know nothing: my input here is purely because of the improper nature of the non-close.  Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742, the conclusion didn't seem to be that the relist was inappropriate. -- Trevj (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge per MQS - Clearly notable, either solution is acceptable as long as the basic material is not deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge' just keep the thing off the main page!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

attempt at counting consensus obviously not binding, and not an actual vote count, but the discussion above is somewhat convoluted, with people offering different opinions at different times. try to keep reasoning short here for readability, and post full discussion level stuff above?


 * Comment - What is this "counting consensus" crap? This is not a vote, it is a discussion of the merits of sourcing, as to whether a given topic meets notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not the subject of significant coverage in independent, published, reliable sources. In essence, a non-notable independent film. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you voted keep above, and object to a merge result (keep only), sign here
Keep only werldwayd (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you voted delete above, and object to a merge result (delete only), sign here

 * I object to a merge result because none of the significant content in the article is reliably sourced, but instead is derived (some cut-and-pasted) from overtly promotional sources. The subject is already treated more than adequately in the Sagat article. Delete and redirect is the appropriate way to deal with a article whose history includes no reliable sourcing, but extensive copyright violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In looking beyond current states, I still contend that article issues are more often addressable than not... but as pertinant non-crufty, non-hype, neutral and sourced information that does not contain any of the words or phrases or sources to which the nominater here has taken issue, have been added through regular editing to the Sagat article, I would be okay with a result of delete and redirect of the current article. As preserving the pertinant information has now been done, I would but qualify my agreement with a proviso that there should be no prejudice toward a neutral recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. (See HW, I think we can agree on some things, after all)  And, as a result of this edit, the discussion below of post-AFD merge has been rendered moot. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I hardly think that inserting paraphrases from a press release into an article, as you did here, is anything resembling appropriate editing. Second, your distortion of NFILM, removing the essential qualifying language "and is a major part of his/her career," is inconsistent with both policy in general and well-established community practice regarding this genre. And you didn't even represent your (inadequate) sources accurately, since none of them say that Part 2 has been released yet (a claim that not even the studio's own website doesn't seem to make). Slipshod all the way around. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What about a cup of tea and relax? Stop this personal war against MQS, now it is getting increasingly specious and boring. If there are inaccuracies (as we all are humans) you can correct them by regular editing, no need to come here and personally attacking the good faith contributions of another editor... I just note our policy does not preclude the use of primary sources (as press releases are) for descriptive statements of facts that does not require different interpretations, even if obviously prefers secondary and tertiary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Thanks. Cavarrone (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * His point of no actual confirmation of Part 2 being released (yet) has been (easily) addressed by through regular editing. And to avoid running afoul of copyright issues it would seem that all content in Wikipeidia is a paraphrasing in simpler terms that which sources elsewhere offer. If it were "reinterpretation" of a source to infer a meaning that is not explicitly evident in the source itself, then we would then have "original research," and not a paraphrase. And if a source dealt with a film in a promotional manner, our removing the source's puffery and reporting in simple non-promotional terms what the source offered is how we build an encyclopdia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, that's a remarkably demeaning and dismissive attitude to take towards the many Wikipedia contributors who take the time and effort to write genuinely good articles, and shows how far your ideas about what an encyclopedia is depart from consensus and policy regarding what Wikipedia should be. Wikipedia should not be, or include, a collection of thinly paraphrased comments from press releases, PR copy, and other promotional material. If that were its standard mode of article writing, it would be worthless junk. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought this voting area of the discussion was created to count voting, whereas it is now being used for rekindling discussion with the same acrimonious wording regarding the work of other editors. Discussions are not meant to be "either my way or none.." This is not a "one way street". You should be welcoming and receptive to other comments and huge number of contributors who have expressed positive opinions about the relevance of this film. Their opinion also counts for something and more than a dozen editors think this is a relevant film. This is not a crusade against pornographic films. I have gone back to many other of your selective AfDs and I don't feel comfortable at all with your attitude about pornographic films. This is crystal clear for me after reviewing your other AfDs in this regard and your comments there. This intransigency and persistently dwelling on one particular subject only leads to a poisonous tit-for-tat comments as we have unfortunately witnessed here and elsewhere. No comment passes by you and you have to respond with more zeal every time. I simply admire MichaelQSchmidt for continuing with the argument and taking the brunt of such comments. Enough. Let an independent administrator decide on "keep", "redirect" or "delete" and let's get over with this. werldwayd (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I object to this entire non-standard process. An independent administrator, at the end of debate, should rule DELETE, KEEP, MERGE, or REDIRECT. Fuck this idiotic vote-counting, this is not an election. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you approve of a merge result, sign here (feel free to indicate if you lean to keep or delete but would accept merge)
merge or delete notable only through relationship to director, marginal sources, and would not clutter artist's pageGaijin42 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * approve merge, only very slight lean towards keep (voted keep above) --62.163.152.44 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * merge as I said above. Mostly delete, but merge the most critical bits to director's article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This section has been pretty nuch rendered moot, as non-crufty, non-hype, neutral and sourced information has been now been added to François Sagat per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. No prejudice toward a neutral recreation of article if/when more sources become available.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge seems fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tedentially keep (voted keep above), but a merge and redirect is also ok for me, Gaijin42's rationale is convincing. Cavarrone (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can understand the sensitivity of the topic of Pornography and Gay Sex in general, but I think there is a lot of hedging going around in the above debate. For those who choose to disagree with me please refer Notability (films) and provide supporting arguments (such as a listing in |IMDB or |Rotten tomatoes) or coverage in independent media that is not just a promotional message for the film.  I will vote for merge if a suitable merge is suggested but if there isn't please delete. An article can be re-listed later if there are reliable references and I don't think anybody objects to that. Wikishagnik (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2012 (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.