Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peto Coast


 * 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   delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Peto Coast

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PORNBIO as he has not "won a well-known and significant industry award" or fufilled either of the remaining criteria. Moreover the article fails WP:GNG as a quick google search reveals no coverage of substance to satisfy that criteria Finnegas (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, this one appears to be really a non notable performer. Fails any suitable notability guideline. Cavarrone 19:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not even asserted but an A7 speedy was contested in 2011. No reliable source coverage found to pass GNG. Fails PORNBIO without awards or nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. A 2012 Hustlaball nomination is slightly notable (there is an article on Hustlaball), but that single nom is all I could find.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added in 1 win and 4 nominations (he may have also won some of those he was nominated for- I can't find who actually won them). Some of the films he's been in have also been nominated and won awards. Seems to have quite a following and presence within the gay bareback/fetish sub-genres and seems to be a lot in the article that can be expanded on.--Rushton2010 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And just as a side note, google's not very good for "adult" things as they have been screening things out; even with safesearch off and quite explicit search perimeters, things are noticeably filtered when compared with other search engines.


 * Both sets of awards involved -- "Hustlaball" and "International Escort" -- by previous consensus, fail the "well-known/significant" standard in PORNBIO. Indeed, the "International Escort" awards were, by consensus, deleted as non-notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot how homophobic things are and how only straight porn awards are notable. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that came across more sarcastic than I intended, but it is a relevant concern. The straight porn awards are considered noteworthy and deserving of record for eternity, but the gay equivalents are not? What is that if not homophobia? By declaring the gay equivalents such, it makes it impossible for a gay porn actor to pass the criteria because only straight awards and actors are deemed deserving of note. It's clearly exclusionist and discriminatory and looks like a very serious case of homophobia --Rushton2010 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus. Finnegas (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Others would call that institutionally homophobic. Its already been plastered across the media how Wikipedia is institutionally sexist, so why should we be surprised by homophobia? --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We've also not seen any proof to back up claims of a prior "consensus"; that consensus may not reflect current "consensus". And homophobia and discrimination are still homophobia and discrimination whether the majority agree with it or not: its clearly an issue that goes much further than this article.--Rushton2010 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Rushton. He's well-known in the gay porn world. And it is unfortunate that what we normally declare as reliable sources fail, in this instance, to account for someone being "known" in the larger sense. I will try and find suitable sources, but I don't think we should be in any rush to delete the article. Definitely does not warrant a "speedy deletion" in my opinion anyway. Icarus of old (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems a sensible option. The first reviews were based on the article as it was, before award wins and nominations were added in (and seem to have based judgement solely on the fact no awards were mentioned), so they should be invited back to reassess when the article has been expanded. --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as I think 's assessment is spot on. Technical 13 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gene93k's assessment says he had no awards or nominations which has now been proven incorrrect... so did you even bother to read the article? --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, on balance. The criteria say that nominations should be for a "well-known and significant industry award".  I get the impression Hustlaball isn't one of these.  In fact, I'm not sure it is even worthy of its own article, in view of the paucity of the references.Deb (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2013 (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.