Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah Falcon (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. SpinningSpark 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonah Falcon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wow, really?!? [redacted personal attack on article subject] For policy and technical sake, this is basically a WP:1E subject and should be deleted for this reason. Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - as nominator. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote above. Your nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica1000 00:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep not notable as an actor. It's a more... personal... situation that's made him notable. Extensive coverage in multiple media sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree, so I'll add notable for one event "thing" (as it were in this case) as additional justification for deletion. The idea of this BLP article is salacious at best and the sources are tenuous. This guy is no more notable than Brian Zembic, the gambler who got breast implants on a bet. But Zembic is not a "one hit wonder", this guy is. Falcon thinks that if he does porn, he won't ever be taken seriously. I have news for him, its already happened and the article doesn't help his circumstances. Plus, I can find sources on a great many subjects, but it does not make them Encyclopedia worthy. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd have a heck of a time trying to delete Zembic too. Wikipedia may not be news, but that doesn't mean that what receives coverage in the news is not worth including in Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
 * That's exactly my point, and I agree about Zembic. In my opinion his article is worth keeping because he is notable for more than just the breast implants even if they are potentially temporary. Falcon on the other hand has had a large penis his entire life and that is all that the guy is known for. Guinness will acknowledge the World's largest natural breasts, but not Falcon. Why are we memorializing a "big dick" in an encyclopedia? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Notable of one event is not notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A body member is an event? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're applying the "spirit" of the policy versus just the "letter of the law", then yes. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. "Event" means "event"; there is no "notable for just one thing" deletion criterion. "Otho the Fat is known only for his reign as king of Graustark, delete per BIO1E" won't cut it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: No lack of coverage, and there is precedent ;) John and Lorena Bobbitt
 * But that's not how WP works. Because of WP:OTHERSTUFF, your comment has no merit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, my comment has merit according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The individual clearly has notability on the WP:GNG criteria:  "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Does anyone dispute that?  You seem to be saying that Falcon is not notable because his notability derives from his penis; e.g. notability based on penis is unacceptable for Wikipedia.  As far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia policy to deny notability based on body characteristics. John Bobbitt also derives his notability from his penis and the community has accepted that article for quite a while now, so I see no reason to not accept Mr. Falcon's notability.  WP:OTHERSTUFF states: "while these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument".  My cogent argument is that the article meets notability requirements that should not be ignored just because some find the subject matter distasteful, particularly given that the subject matter is already the source of notability in other articles. Vrac (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, then I guess its your comparison of the John and Lorena Bobbitt vs. Falcon that I don't agree with. Bobbit is famous for what was done to him, it coincidentally involved his penis and his wife and a lot of other drama. So I find your comparison and logic flawed and not supportive of your argument. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah there would be an article for sure if she had cut his finger off. Vrac (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so if I understand your logic correctly... "Dick" articles should exist in an Encyclopedia because they are about "dicks"? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I'm saying that  articles that have established notability per GNG should not be deleted because the subject matter offends you. Vrac (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG for his huge penis. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, how so? I'd really like to hear how you get past the "Presumed" section of GNG? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Presumed" section in GNG is difficult to apply in practice except for clear cases. There are several categories of articles on Wikipedia, which at least some people would find problematic under "presumed".  In this case, there has been wide and sustained coverage, which I think is critical here.  Perhaps an article entitled Jonah Falcon's huge penis would be more specific to actually notability, but that would just be wrong. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With regard to "wide and sustained coverage", the sources cited seem to make him primarily the butt of a joke versus any actual reporting of news. If this meets your criteria for a WP:RS, it would seem that we're lowering the bar pretty far. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep. No basis for deletion actually based in deletion policy or guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, I understand the one event concern but when someone is the main subject of an HBO documentary and of a Channel 4 documentary he is clearly not a low-profile individual as prescribed in the WP:BLP1E policy. Cavarrone 10:16, 7 December 2014 (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.