Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter North (porn star)


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy Keep. Rob 04:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter North (porn star)
Delete because it is offensive, pornographic, and can serve no possible purpose. Alethiophile 18:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Strong keep (I'd voted "weak keep" because I wasn't sure about notability, but a quick search surely demonstrates notability) inasmuch as it seems settled that porn stars with sufficient film histories and general following are to be viewed as notable; if there is a general desire that that discussion should be reopened, I'd gladly take part (arguing for adult film actors as notable), but, in the meanwhile, I think "keep" is clearly in order. Notwithstanding one's opinions about the proper disposition of the article, surely one cannot find the article "offensive".  Joe 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: "offensive" and "pornographic" are not reasons to delete a page on an actor (adult or otherwise) who obviously meets WP:BIO. -- Kinu t /c  18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I find many things offensive, but I would not want to curb someone else's freedom of expression because of my opinion. "Offensive" and "can serve no possible purpose" is a dangerous, slippery slope. -Keglined 18:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep He's a pornstar. He's done a lot of films.  He has a decent amount of name recognition.  kotepho 18:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No legitimate reasons given in nom, and North is clearly one of the more notable male porn stars, for what that's worth. Esquizombi 18:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? We can't start deleting information just because someone is against pornography or homosexuality.  When someone uses the word "offensive" as a reason for deletion, we're venturing into personal opinion, not objective reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BayAreaGuy (talk • contribs)
 * Speedy keep per Kinu. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously. —This unsigned comment was added by KarlBunker (talk • contribs).
 * Speedy keep per WP:NOT censored. -- Rory 0 96 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Obviously notable actor; AfD nomination was based on false premises (although NOT bad faith -- Alethiophile claims to be 12 on his user page).  Powers 19:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the most well-known porn actors that exists. Notable, verifiable. Ifnord 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable person. Notable activity? As notable as simulating bodily functions. Verifiable? Rather hearsay concerning the non-notable. Well-known? Subjects in this category may be as well known as a very large trash heap outside New York city. Individual trash heaps are not mentioned in Waste. Lastly, the non-notable and completely inane details contained here can be expected if you are firmly on the road to the non-notable. JMK 22:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Fresh Kills Landfill has its own page. -- Kinu t /c  22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable porn star within genre with over 1,000 films to his name. Capitalistroadster 22:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, no valid grounds for deletion cited. Yes, his vocation lacks any real merit. Rob one bank, you're a petty criminal beneath notice here. But rob 1500. . . . Monicasdude 00:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: You must be kidding. Are we going to try to delete Traci Lords next?  Or John Holmes (actor)?  You know who was really awful?  Adolf Hitler.  Go ahead and bring him to Afd - I'd like to see that.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: No grounds for deletion, probably put up for deletion as a joke Tooranatan 01:40, 24 March 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.