Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Donovan (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 was   speedily deleted (G4) by Chrislk02. Non-admin closure.Deor (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rick Donovan (porn star)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Biography of porn performer with no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. IMDB lists no awards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Starred in more than 30 movies and has a 10" penis is notable. I'm suspect there may be some sexist/anti-gay bias behind this nom. There's plenty of other porn stars up here on Wikipedia you could nom, but you chose this one. Same line of work, different sexuality/gender. What gives? Maybe you need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself what it is that makes you hate this article so much. Maybe you'll find it's really something you hate within yourself. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your relevant and insightful comments. I will be sure to ask myself those questions the next time I find myself near a mirror. Also, your user talk page seems to redirect to Fuck off, which you might consider changing so you look sightly less trollish. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. I ran into user at another AfD, without a ten-inch penis. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - is this it? A list of not notable movies and a single bloggy external? Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not WP:NOTABLE. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP without any proper sourcing. No verified claim of notability.   Allowing this is like letting some random YouTube user list all the videos they're in, to prove notability.  Being in a video just means somebody hit the "record" button.  It doesn't mean anybody noted it. --Rob (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless you can come up with some reliable sources about him and his work, then he does not meet our notability standards. Lady  of  Shalott  15:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  16:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for the many valid reasons already listed. We really should reconsider the practice of allowing the claim of being a "porn star", standing alone or with nothing more than a laundry list of credits, to be sufficient to survive A7 speedy deletion. And Moonlichen's comments certainly resemble those made by various sockpuppeteers in other discussions regarding the notability of gay porn performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at Google Books you'll find plenty of evidence for a gay pornstar named Rick Donovan, known for the large size of his penis. Whether there's enough reliable material there to write an article about I doubt, but comments here make it obvious that nobody has made any effort to look for sources. I'm pretty sure that we should have articles about gay porn stars like Donovan, but I'm also fairly sure that we don't currently having the sourcing to keep it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no shortage of articles on gay porn performers on Wikipedia (see List of male performers in gay porn films). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've nominated the page for speedy deletion; Rick Donovan was deleted in 2009 for lack of RS-sourcing, and the current version seems to be little more than a skimpier version of the original with even less reliable (non)referencing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - reliable sources exist, but they are difficult to tease out because of the commonness of the name and the reduced likelihood of said sources to be available online. The article is in terrible shape but that's not an excuse for deleting it. Lafe Smith (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2011 (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.