Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Ford


 * 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. JForget 00:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Leo Ford

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Disputed prod. Tagged as unsourced since December 2007. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, numerous reliable sources assert notability well past any GNG; like these, these and these, and these. This is - yet another - of noms unfortunate fixation in this subject area where their poor judgment including apparently ignoring WP:Before is quite evident. -- Banj e  b oi   04:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous afd. speedy keep.  Woogee (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ridiculous nomination. If someone thinks Leo Ford is an "unremarkable porn performer", he doesn't know enough about porn performers to have an opinion on the subject. - Outerlimits (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Benjiboi. Joe Chill (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The search results provided by Benjiboi appear to be, for the most part, passing references. Leo Ford does not appear to meet the WP:GNG guideline. Four references have been added to the article to support a claim that is inaccurate (see "Hand in Glove" single cover model not Leo Ford discussion on talk page). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources found seem enough to pass GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Divine, as the only RS-sourced basis for notability is his relationship with and reported deleterious influence on that notable person. Article itself is not well-sourced, omits well-sourced unfavorable material regarding its subject. Several of the cited print sources mention subject only tivially and do not support notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as far as i can tell the sources establish two things: That he once dated someone famous and that he was the "butt cover model" for A Smith's album. Can a Leo Ford's ass in popular culture article be far behind?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that wasn't his ass on the single sleeve. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the owner of the ass is something of a mystery. How exciting! If I can get to the library this week i'll get to work on Leo Ford Smiths cover art ass controversy.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. Seems fairly definitive that the owner of the ass is George O'Mara photographed in 1959. I'm sure some responsible editors will strip that claim out of the article post-haste.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Book coverage listed in the article makes him notable.  D r e a m Focus  06:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be mentioned in many books, more than passing references. Gigs (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you spell out one of these more than passing references and how they would make him a suitable candidate for an encyclopedic biography?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. From the first link, in September 1982 he performed at Nob Hill Cinema in an erotic stage show benefit.  Bronze sculptures of him were sold for $125 each.  From the second link, a nude picture of him appeared on a sleeve for a single from The Smiths.  There is quite a number of book references here with biographical facts about his career and accomplishments.  I didn't even look at web sources because there was enough just in the book sources.  I'm not sure how you could have any doubt that notability is easily met. Gigs (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, son. The first one, I'll assume is true, doesn't establish encyclopedic notability. As for The Smiths single, it wasn't Ford. It was a guy named George O'Mara. The Smiths claim is bullshit. Even if it was true of course, it still wouldn't amount to notability. Being a model for a stock photo that is later used for a record single is not generally considered to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Son? You are out of line. Gigs (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't George O'Mara's ass? It was someone elses ass? How am I out of line, exactly?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You addressed a co-editor as "son", a term not used of equals. It was inappropriate, and an attempt to be demeaning. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So it wasn't George O'Mara's ass and therefore non-notable? That's what actual research suggests.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your interest in Leo Ford's ass is truly commendable however you're missing the salient point that even if it was disputed - on a fan site I guess - who's ass it was it is still referenced as his ass. This would seem to imply that he was famous enough for someone to assume it was his ass. p.s. You still owe Gigs an apology. -- Banj e  b oi   14:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per numerous significant coverages in RS passing GNG.  Triplestop  x3  23:36, 8 December 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.