Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan (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The result was   Nomination withdrawn on the condition that the article is returned to userspace until issues fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Carrigan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. No significant independent coverage, and two of the award nominations listed were for the films rather the person. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Urge withdrawl. The references as they stand are not sufficient to cover claims in the article, and it's laughable to claim that using some particular template guarantees immunity from sourcing objections, especially on a topic where there have been ongoing tensions about BLP implications. Having said that, seven minutes is too soon to nominate for deletion; the correct approach is to urge the article creator to keep the page out of mainspace until sourcing is impeccable, and nominate only if it returns to mainspace in such a state, or the creator refuses to userfy. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination / Keep This badly misjudged nomination for deletion was raised less than 7 minutes after the article was re-created. This AfD should be immediately closed as a keep on the basis that no attempt has been made to apply BEFORE, it is confrontational by ignoring the open construction tag and has failed to give enough time to consider that the award nominations added were for the subject's directing career, not his acting career, so PORNBIO does not apply but ARTIST does. I am bitterly disappointed that an admin is behaving in such a POV deletionist and confrontational way. Ash (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination / Keep. Satisfies WP:PORNBIO. Subject of the article, Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years. Cirt (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said, two of the award nominations listed were for the films rather the person. Epbr123 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Films where he was principally involved as the director. Cirt (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Best Release" is a reward for a film, not a director. "Best Director" would be an award for a director. If you look at the references for the awards, Paul Carrigan isn't mentioned. Epbr123 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still arguing on the basis of PORNBIO, as the award was not for acting that is not a valid rationale. If you apply ARTIST then "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, ..." exactly fits this scenario of how the awards justify notability as a director. Ash (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Film directors are frequently recognized for directing a film that then goes on to win a notable award in the "Best Picture" category. It is indeed a mark of distinction as the film director has a significant influence on the development of the film itself. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this were Lucus or Spielberg this argument wouldn't be taking place. -Stillwaterising (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the director-to-film recognition should be applied in the same manner. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the inaccurate comment that Paul Carrigan passes PORNBIO. Regarding ARTIST, I disagree that his work is significant or well-known. I see no evidence that any of the films he's directed are notable. The notability guideline for films is that they need to have won a "major award" rather than a nomination for a not-so-major award. Epbr123 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If your argument is based on a vague un-sourced personal opinion of the un-notability of the GayVN awards, then I suggest you withdraw this AfD and raise an AfD on GayVN Awards to decide the matter properly (it would certainly be interesting to see your list of "major" gay porn film industry awards that are more notable than AVN's). Such a discussion is off-topic for this BLP. Ash (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the GayVN Awards are "major"; they still weren't award wins. Epbr123 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination I'm afriad that the nominator failed to acknowledge existing guidelines regarding undeleted pages. The contruction tag affords the article a 7 day window in which it should not be nominated for previous reasons. I'm respectfully asking the nominator to withdraw his nomination. -Stillwaterising (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Request for withdraw of nomination: After taking a look at this, I agree with the request for the nominator to withdraw the nomination. The nomination to AFD was made 7 minutes after the article was reworked and moved back into mainspace. When nominated, the article had the construction tag at the top of the page. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to withdraw the nomination if the article is returned to userspace. Epbr123 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an agreeable resolution for the time being. :) Cirt (talk) 19:41, 14 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.