Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Cruise


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Jake Cruise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of notability, in spades. I tell no lie, I got zero hits on google for this name. TheLongTone (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – In actuality I found quite a few references for Jake Cruise, as shown here that I believe generates enough coverage to meet WP:GNC.  However in actually Jack Cruise is just a pseudonym for Ric Alonso  a real person.  As such, in that Jack Cruise is a fictional character, article should be deleted. ShoesssS Talk 14:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the sparse coverage there is is not of cruise but of his company, and that would be better covered in a topical article about the issues that lead to his company incuring fines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * How anyone gets "zero hits" on a Google search for this name is dumbfounding. The name by itself gets over TWO MILLION HITS when I do a search on it!  With regard to the first delete vote above,  having an article under the most commonly known name for a person— whether their real name or a pseudonym— is standard practice on Wikipedia and is not usually sufficient reason to delete an article on a genuinely notable person (cf. "Madonna").  Is "Ric Alonso" notable?  If so, then this article about him should stand, regardless of what it is titled.  One of the sources I just added to the article describes him as a "Mogul" in its title.  He's been discussed several times in reliable published sources, and I have given evidence of this in the article here.  If you want to argue he is not notable, please don't claim that you get "zero Google hits" or that the article is "titled incorrectly".  Neither of those will hold water here as a reason for deletion.  Lastly, if you want to argue that his company is notable and not him, then you should probably be voting for a move rather than a delete, no? (But I stand by my assertion that the man himself is the discussion of the Miss American pageant incident, not his company)  A loose noose (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, it's evident that nominator has somehow messed his WP:BEFORE search; results are close to 2 million. Whether this is significant coverage or not, I can't tell, but it's worth nothing that sources are not only from 2011; never sources have revisited this person. 's argument does not stand either; many notable people are known under pseudonyms, and pseudonyms are not "fictional characters". (Even if they were, that doesn't address notability either since some fictional characters are notable.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 *  Comment – I apoligize in my wording for delete but will let it stand. My concerns is that I do believe that “Jack Cruise” does meet our current notability guildlines.  However, that character is just a pseudonym for Ric Alonso who is a real living person that took great care in covering his real name with concern to his involvement in the porn industry.  And as such falls under our WP:BLP policy which states; “…"Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step”.  In that Mr. Aloson is involved with an extremely controversial subject and took pains to not to revel his real name I felt it was appropriate to delete this page until a more through rewrite of the article took place.  Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 12:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss the sources, then, . Which of the ones currently in the article do you think are not reliable and how many saying Alonso = Cruise do we need to satisfy reliably sourced? There is no shortage of sources out there, now it's just a question of getting them in the article to address your concern. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * reply by nominator Tried it again, still get zero hits; I'm doing this on a library computer so maybe all the hits are too smutty for some block or other.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Really? Weird.  The articles about his involvement in the Miss America pageant, while they do mention that he is involved in pornography, are not themselves smutty (did you try a search on "Ric Alonso" as well (not "Alonson")?  That might show you at least a few hits, maybe enough to confirm that he is in fact Jake (not "Jack") Cruise).  It does seem possible that your library computer is blocking all results that contain the words "Jake Cruise", since those words together probably appear in no other context than in relation to pornography.  Can you attempt a search in any other location?  Also, you may want to try doing a search on some other porn-related name or entity like, oh, Chi Chi La Rue.  If you still cannot find her, then it is time to switch computers.  A loose noose (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * well I don't know what was going on, but I tried a couple of searches with amended terms and as I say got zip. Really I don't give a rat's ass about the outcome of this afd; I simply came across the page while new page patrolling, thought the claim of notability sketchy, did a quick search. With the (surprising result of zero hits)TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: GNG levels of coverage from almost a decade. No BLP issues. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable award,s Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (Davey, he also doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, WP:MUSIC, or WP:ATHLETE, but I don't think a person necessarily has to pass PORNBIO or win an industry award in order to warrant a Wikipedia article, and aren't the subject-specific guidelines meant to be a secondary means of inclusion rather than a primary means of exclusion?  Also, what part of GNG is not met?  We have multiple articles here in reliable independent published sources, no?  A loose noose (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC))
 * is a respected and prolific editor, but if you look at his contributions, he participates a lot in pornography bio AfDs and (almost) always uses that exact same comment. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak rename and redirect to Ric Alonso, his real name. Moderate coverage suggests barely meeting notability, although I'm not sure how notable the scholarship is. [][][][] TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except aren't we supposed to have articles under the names by which the subject is best known? He isn't known (very much) under "Ric Alonso", he is known under his industry-related name, "Jake Cruise" (but I thought I already pointed this out).  A loose noose (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 07:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:PORNBIO nor WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered above are insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV requirements for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman: Here's a better question: does he meet the GNG? ANYBIO says he has to win an award (he has won no awards) or appear in a national directory of biographies (do you really think that is going to happen to a director of pornographic films?) to qualify under that guideline.  I am saying that as a subject, he meets the GENERAL notability guidelines, not some some subject-specific one that other editors decide should be applied to this case (did you see my argument about this above??).  I am not trying to qualify him under any such guideline, I am saying he meets the GNG, and that that, in the end, is supposed to be enough (...Isn't it?). A loose noose (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, he does not. Sources offered above are insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV requirements for a BLP = GNG is not met. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -K.e.coffman: From SIGCOV: ["Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.] The mentions are not trivial ones, and he is the main topic of several.  No original research has been added or is needed. Can you explain to me how this means SIGCOV is not met?  Thanks. A loose noose (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Also WP:GNG not pass. Siddiqsazzad001       23:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Siddiqsazzad001: The nominator has admitted that the only reason he nominated this article for deletion was because he could not find the name anywhere on the Internet, which was likely the result of a library filter, because the name gets over 2 million hits (please verify that, if you like). And again, what part of GNG "not pass?"  Simply saying it is true doesn't make it so.  Which references are problematic?  Which shouldn't count here?  Why? A loose noose (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can see this going nc unless we start discussing the sources instead of just saying passed or fails.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the existing sourcing is about the company, not the person. As such, he doesn't meet the GNG. I see no other coverage that meets the GNG: mainly interviews, etc. which are not independent sources and thus don't count for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2018 (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.