Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Tyson


 * 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. After two relists, there is still clear disagreement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Tiger Tyson

 * –( ViewAfD Viewlog   ):

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Yet another anti-porn nomination from the same editor. Article easily meets WP:NACTOR. --John B123 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note which of the 3 criteria listed at WP:NACTOR this persona meets, with supporting evidence, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I just don't see any notability here. I checked WP:NACTOR (John B123 Thanks) but all 3 bullets there appear to fail: (1) "significant roles in multiple notable films," - none, otherwise there would be blue links in the movies cited in his article. (2) "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." - none, otherwise his website link in his infobox wouldn't be for sale and, instead, it would be boasting with followers counted in the 100,000's, (3) "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." - not really: the only claim to fame he seems to have is he got "inducted into the GayVN Hall of Fame in February 2008", but that was 11 years ago, what other recognition has he gotten since? Also, that single (and seemingly inconsistent) award by itself could hardly, IMO, be called a claim to fame. Sorry, I would had voted to keep but the rationale just isn't there. Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Has appeared in non-notable porn films, nothing to suggest subject meets notability criteria. Zaathras (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Part of me is tempted to say the fact he lacks an official website is a strong sign he is not notable. Clearly there is no actual sign of notability. Wikipedia has had way, way too many articles on pornographic performers for far too long. We have been inprovements since 2011 when some of the claims about our over coverage were put out, but we still have a long way to go. We have to stop treating PR stagins by the pornographic industry as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources exist and have been added to article. Lack of official website, of which he has apparently had many, is actually a sign he has transitioned from actor to behind the scenes, which is apparently quite common for gay male porn. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You added approx 20,000 kilobytes of essentially nothing, just a long list of industry awards and nominations which no longer count towards notability for porn actors. Zaathras (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Those awards and noms, by far an incomplete list, show that he was hardly an ordinary performer, some of them recognized his directing work. And I think a fair assessment shows there was more than just that, and sourcing exists to indeed create a good article, which I think is the point. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If sourcing exists, then by all means produce it. Show where the WP:GNG is satisfied, as links to XBIZ and AVN don't cut it. Zaathras (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * XBIZ and AVN were used afterwards to confirm mainly the films themselves, although a few of their articles also re-supported other content. Which you likely already know. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment for closer. Article has been completely re-written. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it has. What was before a short bio of a non-notable porn actor is now a masturbatory hagiography, bloated to the extreme with mostly AVN/XBIZ citations. His PR department would be proud. Zaathras (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I must commend you, for having less than 200 edits you have an exceptionally advanced understanding of XfD, and how Wikipedia works. Well worth noting.
 * Secondly, those references, which mainly support content already in the article—confirming what had been stated was accurate, are arguably industry experts in an industry that notoriously has sourcing challenges, and serve as institutional memory for companies, like Tiger’s, that *don’t* seem to do any planning for documenting their legacy, and abandon company websites one after the next. That one is able to find anything is surprising. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Casting aspersions when you run outta arguments. Keep it classy! Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just observations of the WP:Ducking obvious. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete What it seems to be is many many tiny and trivial citations attempting to add up to one big "it's notable!", but it just doesn't get there. No criteria of WP:NACTOR have been met ("notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", no. "fan base or cult following", no evidence presented of this. "unique, prolific or innovative contributions", no evidence of this, "thug porn" appears to be an unremarkable niche genre). As for WP:GNG, no, everything is either trivial (Paper Magazine bio sheet) or not independent from the subject (all the AVN awards). The play based on his life was intriguing, but again, a non-notable performance in itself. ValarianB (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I obviously disagree. That his life story was made into a play by a notable author itself seems to be notable.
 * That he is the de facto representative of thug porn, which is shown to represent a fifth of the industry seems notable.
 * And his many awards and noms *all* independent of him and his companies suggests he has been recognized for his work.
 * He’s been recognized both inside and outside of the porn industry for his contributions as both an actor, and producer. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we shall see where it goes, no harm in disagreeing. :) It is well-written and researched, I am just unconvinced of the notability still. Take care. ValarianB (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think being the definitive ‘thug porn’ prototype meets #3 of WP:Actor - “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” I look at meeting WP:GNG though, so I hadn’t considered another criteria. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Hmm! What constitutes a notable porn film? I don't see usual academics writing about porn. Reliable and independent sources exists and supports notability. It does not matter whether the acknowledgement was 11 years ago. Notability is not temporary. - Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cite the sources you claim are notable so we can evaluate them. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These could include:
 * Ferguson, JD (27 July 2007). "JD Ferguson Presents: Tiger Tyson". Paper. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
 * Bacalzo, Dan (15 June 2010). "Johnathan Cedano to Star in Confessions of a Homo Thug Porn Star on Fire Island". Theater Mania. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
 * "Porn star's story explored in new play". Washington Blade. 28 April 2011. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
 * Moore, Darnell L. (7 July 2016). "Catch a Tiger By His Toe: An Interview with James Earl Hardy by Darnell L." Medium. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
 * Escoffier, Jeffrey (2009). Bigger than life : the history of gay porn cinema from beefcake to hardcore. Philadelphia: Running Press. pp. 314–8. ISBN 978-0-7867-4753-5. OCLC 647869684.
 * Harrison, Byrne (16 June 2010). "Gay Theatre NYC Review: Interview - Johnathan Cedano of Confessions of Homo Thug Porn Star". Gay Theatre NYC Review. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
 * Colbert, Chuck (23 March 2013). "A Weekend with Tiger Tyson hosted by the HBGC". The Rainbow Times. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
 * Boardman, Mickey (12 October 2005). "Tiger, Tiger, Burning Bright". Paper. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
 * Colbert, Chuck (1 May 2012). "HBGC Event: Black and Latino Gay Men on Pornography". The Rainbow Times. Retrieved 6 December
 * And his dozens of articles at AVN and XBIZ. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep votes have more grounding in wishful thinking than policy and notability not met. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think being the definitive ‘thug porn’ prototype meets #3 of WP:Actor - “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” As well, I think he passes WP:GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well written! It has enough independent sources and passed WP:GNG. I noticed that the article has been rewritten / expanded after the nomination - Jay (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Various films he was in have earned awards, and there are plenty of sources. Notability is not temporary.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete outright since subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Some participants in this discussion seem to forget or ignore this RfC outcome that has conclusively deprecated WP:PORNBIO. This means that all criteria specifically meant for persons in the porn industry are now defunct; arguments based on them do not get off the starting blocks.
 * We now have only and strictly WP:ENTERTAINER and there is no criterion that our subject meets: Criterion #3 (unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment) is not met since there was nothing innovative or unique in his work. Was his work prolific? We count some forty films in which he participated, which is evidently below the median in the industry, and that also takes care of criterion #1 (significant roles in multiple notable films; emphasis added).
 * Criterion #2, which requires a large fan base or a significant "cult" following for out subject, is not met, per dearth of related evidence and despite the material added recently. The only sign of notability is emitted out of a James Earl Hardy-produced play based on Tyson's memoir. But on its own that's just not enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Let's just say it's WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think being the definitive ‘thug porn’ prototype meets #3 of WP:Actor - “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” As well, I think he passes WP:GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You've argued this already. "Thug porn" itself is not a notable subject. So, Tyson being the "prototype" of a notion that only exists in porn industry nomenclature does not bestow upon him notability Wikipedia-style, which, lest someone forgets, is different from typical, every-day notability. -The Gnome (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I had rarely heard of it myself but apparently it is a thing, at least a fifth of the industry at one point. So to you it may be nothing but in gay porn he’s apparently the leader in this niche genre that his label invented and grew. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You want to have an article on Wikipedia on a person who's supposedly famous for something about which we have not even heard, and which does not qualify in itself as notable? These are attributes esoteric to a fiel, i.e. potn, but do not provide for an argument based on policy. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information, nor is it some industry's guide. -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @The Gnome, in your reply to Gleeanon409, you said “You want to have an article on Wikipedia on a person who's supposedly famous for something about which we have not even heard, and which does not qualify in itself as notable?” True, I have never heard of him too because I am a straight man who don’t bother to watch gayporn. But in this case, it is has got nothing to do with you or me or our sexual orientation and preferences. If you read the article and all the references given, you can see that it meets Notability requirements in both WP:NACTOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. This guy has won awards (refer Awards and nominations), made countless of videos (refer Videography), has a book written containing him (refer bibliography) and has been interviewed by press, etc (independent sources). This guy is definitely has his own fanbase (certainly not you and me). Put that aside, but this article passes all the requirements as an actor; and should stay - Jay (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Jay. You did not understand. The criteria for the inclusion are not mine or personal by anyone else. I stated quite clearly that the subject is not notable, per Wikipedia's policy (even using the term "Wikinotable"). And I merely compound on this, i.e. on the lack of verifiable sources bestowing notability, stating that the field of Tyson's ostensible notability is obscure & esoteric to the point that most of us have not even heard of it. If the extra weight confuses, let's remove it and ignore it; our subject is still as far from being notable as myriads of other subjects one does not find in Wikipedia. Which is alright, really! -The Gnome (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My preference is that *any* article be reasonably well-written and informative. I think this one is, and in researching it learned that the thugporn niche, by some estimates, could be a $500 million to $1 billion industry. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether an activity or a specialty procures large amounts of money to its aficionados or whether a text is well written do not, by and in themselves, constitute criteria for inclusion, Gleeanon409. They are attributes necessary for an article but not enough for having it up. -The Gnome (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While some of the keep votes are in good faith, the sources by still need analyzing to determine if GNG is met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 14:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you seem to suggest that the sourcing offered by me wasn’t in good faith. Am I misreading that? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I find the sourcing to be in good faith. My mistake. If it's shown to meet GNG, it will be kept. ミラP 14:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:BIO / WP:ENT. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the broad assessment that “Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP.” I believe that was previously debunked above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. Nothing of the sort was "debunked". You simply asserted that the subject has "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment”, that field being "thug porn", a porn sub-category that does not even meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. So, WP:NACTOR is out. Apart from this assertion, nothing is proffered to support WP:GNG, aside from the typical stuff used before WP:PORNBIO wad depreceated. -The Gnome (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the sources showing Tyson meets GNG. I can’t say I really understood all the other possible criteria an actor may meet, but I think he’s been covered enough by independent sources to meet GNG. He also has plenty of industry coverage, and awards. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You wrote at least three times "being the definitive thug porn prototype meets #3 of WP:Actor" and each time you were informed that being the "prototype" in something entirely non-notable does not support notability. Perhaps, Gleeanon409, it's high time you stepped away from this horse. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I did state it three times but only you once convolutedly responded that it was somehow irrelevant as no one had yet written the gay thug porn article, or something, I didn’t really follow. In any case, I had dropped it so I don’t know why it’s being re-argued. I’m happy to let others see the article itself and decide if it’s good enough. If I get bored I might try the DYK process. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you do not understand the other party's argument, you can ask for clarifications. You did not ask for clarifications at any time. Now, you claim that the responses you received were "convoluted" and you did not "really follow." Well, this does not mean that you can continue to argue ad nauseam using the exact same point without addressing the objections raised to it. For the last time, and as simply as it it can get: You claim Tyson is notable because he is the prototype of 'thug porn.' To this, the response is that 'thug porn' is not notable. Therefore, any claim of Tyson's notability based on 'thug porn' is null & void.
 * You have crossed the line of proper conduct in an AfD and, through your repetitive argumentation, you're hogging the discussion and being disruptive. -The Gnome (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I only see you arguing here. I took you at your word the first time that him being the prototype of thug porn wasn’t enough. Drop it already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep. Despite over-reliance on AVN as a source, and the listing of this subject as a winner of "Best Ethic Film" (I guess he must be very ethical), I think that the cumulative effect of the coverage in sources is sufficient to just eke its way across the threshold of notability. BD2412  T 23:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The AVN-type sources are all irrelevant since they're specifically about the porn industry while the subject winning an award in the porn industry again does not in itself confer notability. The "cumulative coverage" is from porn publciations and sites, which are again irrelevant. WP:PORNBIO has been deprecated and is gone. We should accept this fact and assess articles accordingly. -The Gnome (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The films, not the actor playing it, won the awards. Even when PORNBIO was active, scene-related and ensemble award wins where expressly excluded.  Besides, the AVN Award credits film and scene awards to the filmmakers.  Tyson was a creator in only one of the named films.  Please also note that the references cited for these wins are obvious press releases from Pitbull Productions, consisting almost entirely of quotes from Pitbull's people.  That doesn't support the films' notability per WP:NFILM nor the filmmakers' notability per WP:CREATIVE.  Even in the mainstream, industry awards tend to be promotional fluff unless independent reliable sources attest to their significance.  Porn trade mags like AVN and XBiz sustain themselves by advertising for the very same porn studios they grant awards to.  Notability needs credibly independent sources.  That is one of the reasons PORNBIO was deprecated. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2019 (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.