Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Harmon


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick Harmon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep How tiresome. Automatically converted contested PRODs to deletions without bothering to do any checking of the facts appears to be pushing an agenda. He passes WP:ARTIST #3 as he stars in at least 27 published films (a significant body of work) including the classic "Boy, Oh Boy". Nominations for deletion are not intended to replace "improvement needed" tags and PORNBIO is not an excuse to purge gay pornstars from Wikipedia when their body of work is self-evident. Ash (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't you pushing this too hard? With 27 films including classics that are still being sold today (over two decades later), the guidance of WP:ATD should have been followed here. The fact that sources have not been added yet is not of itself a rationale for deletion and does not mean that reviews of his work were not published and the fact that his films exist, were popular, were featured and reviewed in many gay publications (in the 80s/90s) is not seriously in doubt. I'll make the point again, if this were early horror films this article would not be put up for deletion. Ash (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per career meeting WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How? Epbr123 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per career and significant roles, how can it be perceived that does he not?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concur with Ash, this is old - "by the mid-1990s, Harmon had established his own web-based production company specializing in fetish-themed films" actors turned producers in niche genres meet WP:Pornbio. -- Banj e  b oi   11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's hardly a "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre". Epbr123 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion but I find your judgement in this area to be inaccurate whereas Ash has actually worked to add content and sources you have steadily worked to delete and destroy regardless of a subject's notability. -- Banj e  b oi   12:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was one of the main contributors to WP:PORNBIO, and Nick Harmon doesn't pass it. No-one has added more content to pornography articles than me, while other's contributions have been questionable at best. Epbr123 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me be more specific - in all the work from you and that other editor I've only seen you working to delete content whereas I've seen Ash actually improving content and in one case proposing a deletion which was denied by consensus. It may be that you have done some good work in the past but I feel their editing is more in keeping with the spirit and letter of editing here. Of course, that is simply my opinion. Hopefully my impression of your work will dramatically improve.  -- Banj e  b oi   12:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Placing bogus citations in articles to prevent them from being deleted isn't in keeping with the spirit and letter of editing here, in my opinion. Epbr123 (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD is about this article, could contributors please stay on topic. Epbr123, rather than making accusations here that an editor is deliberately manipulating AfDs, please use a WP:DR process to present your case. Ash (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely no evidence has been advanced at this time to rebut the nominator's assertion that this article fails to meet the general guideline for notability. Nothing has been done to meet the requirements of the Biographies of living persons policy in regard to sourcing. BLP is a core policy and not negotiable. The number of films someone has appeared in is irrelevant. Only non-trivial coverage in reliable sources constitutes notability. There appears to be no recognition here of the fact we have policies, let alone any understanding of what they are. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. This is a biography of a living person, so great care must be taken to ensure that the information is sourced. At this moment, the article contains only one source &mdash; a video produced by the subject. This does not establish notability. Regardless of whether or not the subject passes WP:ARTIST (the guideline page says, meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included), the article should be deleted for failing Biographies of living persons and Verifiability, two of the most important polices on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2010 (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.