Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (4th 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. Deville (Talk) 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2009 July 4. Neutral. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a verified, fairly comprehensive, encylopedic list. Seems like the main reasons for deleting it boil down to objecting to the existence of gay porn, or even gay people. T-bonham (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable list, if someone would bother to ensure that WP:PORN notability is used to maintain people on the list, then there is no reason the concept of this list is not up to Wikipedia standards. It is certainly no different than any "List of " lists at Wikipedia.  If the content is a problem, then it needs to be cleaned up; but this is not a deletion issue.  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  19:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep List has come a long way from having zero sources to just about complete sourcing in a week's time. It satisfies my deletion rationale concerns (see the 3rd nomination where I nominated it for deletion) regarding sourcing and BLP vio. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- As long as its maintained (IE with verified accurate information), there's no problems, policy wise, with this list. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, provided it is maintained at somewhere near its current level of sourcing. The version at the beginning of the current AfD-DRV-AfD cycle was terribly unsourced, but sufficient improvements have been made to change my mind. I honestly believe BLP-vulnerable pages like this are likely to be more trouble than they are worth - but provided it is well-watchlisted only used to provide sourced links to WP:PORNBIO-notability standards then it is a useful navigational tool and I do not have a problem with it. ~  mazca  talk 23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, it wasn't "terribly unsourced", it had no sources as the list was being tied only to articles that existed already and those articles had to have the sourcing in tact. Obviously that wasn't terribly realistic. Now this is looking more like a list article than just a collection of names. -- Banj e  b oi   00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. As I stated in the last AfD and the subsequent DrV these are basic clean-up issues. I have yet to find any BLP violations which was bandied as a concern. I will continue sourcing with the award winners which has been filling in gaps of coverage, there is cross-referencing to be done as well as ensuring links go to the right person or become disambiguated as porn actors. -- Banj e  b oi   00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How on earth do you even suggest snow keep when the one that just closed was no consensus? I know that gay issues are your pet project, but this seems a little biased when the other one was pretty split. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Snow keep" is based on this AfD. Gay issues are not my pet project but it's an area I feel many editors are prejudiced against for a variety of reasons. All the more important that we present accurate, sourced and balanced information. -- Banj e  b oi   03:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you suggested "snow" after 4 !votes. You don't think that is a little premature? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Snow, at its core is about sending something through a process that is quite unlikely to occur; IMHO, there isn't a "Snow" chance of this list being deleted. Let's see what others have to say. -- Banj e  b oi   08:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm quite certain that I can predict some editors that will swoop in to rescue it. And many of those who think it should be deleted will simply throw up their hands and walk away. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hardly "swooped" in but certainly am rescuing it. I'm concerned, don't you feel improving articles is what we're here to do? If someone feels this should still be deleted then they should make their opinion known and base in it policy. Maybe everyone else here is missing something. -- Banj e  b oi   19:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: per above !votes. Iowateen (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep That a named person is notable for being a pornographic actor and the evidence is sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article, makes all BLP considerations  to be ones applying to the original articles, not this one. DGG (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is already a Category:People appearing in gay pornography, so this list is actually fairly redundant. Yes, I knwo that doesn't prohibit it, but the redundancy seems to make this article irrelevent. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Redundant? There are dozens of entries here which are notable gay porn actors who have no article ergo are not in any categories. This is why we have both lists and categories; they should compliment each other. -- Banj e  b oi   01:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent rescue by Benjiboi. My last delete rationale was based on BLP concerns and these has been cleaned up thoroughly.  Them From  Space  05:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 12 July 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.