Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (porn star) (second 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Dalton (porn star)


This article is an extensively-rewritten draft of the same subject deleted at the earlier AfD. A DRV discussion, while permitting the rewrite, raised questions about the correctness of new sources, and whether they qualified the article under WP:PORNBIO. In view of these concerns, I have editorially undertaken a new AfD to evaluate the article. Weak Delete. Xoloz 16:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall the content here before the previous deletion, but from the look of what's been compiled on the article page I'd have to weigh on in the side of "keep"; Dalton is one of the main porn-muscle celebs; if he only had two "feature films" (now three, although on www.hisx.com or wherever the new image is from there are six listed for sale; and there are three I know of that aren't listed there) that doesn't seem enough of a disqualification, given his extremely high profile in muscle-porn print media and his celebrity status on the party circuit; there's guys who still have articles who are nowhere near as high profile. This is far from my usual area of interest/kibbitzing in Wikipedia, but I decided to add my vote as necessary, so it's Strong Keep.Skookum1 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The disputed sources at the DRV were replaced with the magazine websites that showed him on the cover of their magazines or retail outlets offering the products referenced in the article. One of the disputes&mdash;that gay pornographic magazines are not specifically mentioned as criteria at WP:PORNBIO&mdash;is true; however, that is an oversight. If you read the discussion there, it was always intended that the criteria for inclusion of gay performers was to parallel that for straight performers with allowances for the reduced size of the target audience for gay pornography.


 * As for the relative/parallel importance of the magazines themselves; Hoover's listing for Penthouse shows sales of $53.8 million; the listing for PlanetOut shows sales of $35.6 million&mdash;66% of those for Penthouse Media Group. PlanetOut publishes the SpecPub Inc. titles Men (magazine), Unzipped, Freshmen (magazine), and 2 (magazine).


 * Dalton appeared on the cover of the July 2002 issue of Men and was selected as Men ' s "Man of the Year" for 2002. He appeared on the cover of the July 2006 issue of Unzipped; he was also cover model for the 2003 Adam Gay Video Directory, the definitive guide to gay pornographic films. Additionally, the article covers his time in prison for violating his probation.


 * To question the inclusion of an article on a gay porn performer with this much exposure and recognition just doesn't make sense. While I have to assume good faith, the AfD leads me to believe that my rebuttals to the objections at the DRV were ignored and that the references in the article in its present form weren't examined before the article's nomination here. It's more than a bit galling to have spent more than 5 hours writing an article with references to undeniably verifiable sources (unless someone wants to challenge the display of the publication's covers at its own website) and still have it listed in an AfD. &mdash; Chidom   talk   03:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. His appearance in print press is enough to make a Wikipedia article justifiable.--Wormsie 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete His appearance in a small amount of print media may be enough to amke an article justifiable, but it does not make it verifiable. I have looked and cannot find a single reliable, neutral source of any information on this person.  Porn magazines are notoriously unreliable for anything but trivia.  What mainstream coverage is there? Guy 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please consult the list of gay porn stars page, or the regular porn stars page, and tell me how many of the individuals with linked articles have "mainstream coverage".Skookum1 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Dallas Voice is not a porn magazine, it is a well-established community newspaper. &mdash; Chidom   talk   03:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I found the article useful which is what encyclopeadia articles are supposed to be.--hyarmion 10:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article is far better referenced that most of the articles on Wikipedia. Notability established by Skookum1, above. Zeromacnoo 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chidom's impressive rewrite. Notable in niche genre. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:28, 13 November 2006 (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.