Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. R. Carrington


 * 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. JForget 22:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

J. R. Carrington

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject does not appear to meet any of the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor otherwise achieve notability. The article has had a Notability tag affixed to it since September of 2008. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This article has zero citations.  The subject has apparently won no awards, and there is nothing to otherwise indicate any degree of even slight notability. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've already laid out why you feel it needs to be deleted, no need to repeat your rationale. Tabercil (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator is attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Evidence of the nominator's personal crusade aside, article meets basic requirements for inclusion under WP:BIO which trumps WP:PORNBIO. PORNBIO policy only allows additional single criteria for inclusion. Chuthya (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not a accurate characterization of (some) of my recent activities. I am not attempting to "disrupt Wikipedia," nor am I attempting to "make a point."  Rather, I am attempting to IMPROVE Wikipedia by getting worthless porn fandom spam articles properly deleted; that is not some abstract "point" I am attempting to "prove," but rather an action I am undertaking.  And there's certainly no reason it should constitute a disruption.  Regardless, the article's Nomination for Deletion should be judged on its own merits, and not judged on what people may or may not think about yours truly. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Please see sv:J.R. Carrington. Obelix (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That article should probably be deleted as well, but I will leave that matter in the hands of those who are fluent in the language (Swedish?) in which it was written. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think that Wikipedia can have generous criticism for notability for actors. They usually have great common interest and Wikipedia isn't limited space. They are usually easy to verify with imbd for example. Obelix (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about fewer limitations in a paperless encyclopedia, however we must still retain some standards as to what is covered, and what is not. And not everyone in IMDB is notable, as I'm sure you'd agree. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we cannot have all actors on Wikipedia. But if you check imdb Carrington has acted in 74 movies and is then no small actor who has just acted one single role. If you have had such a big career as Carrington has had then he is absolutely worth to be seen as a famous actor by my means. Obelix (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comparing direct-to-video porn releases to "real movies" isn't very apt, in terms of demonstrating notability. None of those films are remotely notable, most are probably quite obscure, and all are undoubtedly out-of-print, and effectively unobtainable for many years.  Comparing direct-to-video porn flicks to "real movies" is like comparing advertising circulars left on your automobile windshield to published novels. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. As fails WP:PORNBIO and it has been tagged since Sept 2008 to provide better sourcing and none has been added to the article. It have been given more than enough time to demonstrate any notability. Quantpole (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails all recent iterations of WP:PORNBIO, no other indication of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete.  It has not been established that it meets the requirements ofWP:PORNBIO. Most porn stars make a large quantity of films, but that does not indicate quality or significance in the industry.  She is not widely written about, for example, there are few biographical books or mainstream media interviews.  Her legacy in the business is small [removed per BLP].  Her impact on the industry is non-existant. Lattefever (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever.
 * Delete does not present intersections of reliable independent secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:PORNBIO. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2009 (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.