WP:articles for deletion/Ty Russell (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Ty Russell}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ty_Russell_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Ty Russell}})

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, no independent, substantial media coverage. The mere fact of some group awards and scene awards in an industry-internal promotional award scheme, which regularly fails to draw any attention from outside independent media, is irrelevant to notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails all plausible notability criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep this article. The fact that he is not well-covered in sources does not make him less or more notable than he already might or might not be. Sure, he fails both guidelines, but that should not be the reason to delete this article. There are other guidelines and policies that this subject may follow, such as verification policy. I've learned my lesson from WP:articles for deletion/Olivia Hack. These awards might not make him more notable, but right now there are not yet any directly related topics that have been covered in Wikipedia. Also, this article helps serves readers know more about this person's resume than what readers should more or less know. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Huh? "The fact that he is not well-covered in sources does not make him less or more notable"? In Wikipedia policy, notability is coverage in sources. Your argument is completely out of touch with basic principles of this place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• We are discussing this person who has appeared in at least four or more porn movies. "Notability" is just a guideline, not a policy. What basic principles? Educate readers what they want, or take away pages of any subjects just because they do not follow the rules? --George Ho (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Has won two awards, DAVE and AVN. Notability is borderline but sufficient per long standing PORNBIO criteria: "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award". Appeared in multiple movies. Keep also per the first AfD, which closed with a clear cut Keep. — Becksguy (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Exclusion of any award for the PORNBIO is discussed in WT:notability (people). As I said, this person may fail the PORNBIO, but this person applies to other policies (verification and BLP) and to other guidelines (Notability not temporary). I have checked the article again and found out that he won awards for just sex scenes with others. The fact that these awards are either dubious or reliable to verify notability and that (however) PORNBIO is under discussion are irrelevant to this person's overall notability and to his multiple appearances. --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with the keep of 2 years ago and with arguments of George Ho and Becksguy. We do not have any realistic expectation that mainstream news media will cover porn actors (unless the actor does something outside their genre) and so notability to their genre is a plausable enough consideration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• See my comment above, as PORNBIO is currently disputed in the other talk page. As for the genre, PORNBIO does not accurately define people who has appeared in porn movies. Instead, it wants a person to be notable by 1) individual performance awards, 2) "unique contributions to the genre", 3) multiple appearance in "mainstream media" (I don't know which mainstream). Whether he fails all criteria does not make him less notable, as you said, per NTEMP. --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - As George Ho points out, WP:PORNBIO is indeed disputed. It is unstable and chaotic, and is the subject of a recent ongoing RfC. Criteria #1 relating to "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award" (in essentially the same form) has been in the guideline since it's inception in 2006 (when it was a separate guideline). Excluding scene and ensemble awards is an extremely recent and unstable addition and there is no community wide consensus to make these and other changes, as evidenced by the the DISPUTE tag, the edit war in the guideline, and the RfC. The stable criteria that has been in force since 2006 is the only valid version that can be applied in this AfD. Otherwise we are in the untenable position of attempting to apply a guideline that is in chaos to what is supposed to be a rational and deliberative process. It's like changing the applicable law in the middle of a jury trial. If and when the the dust settles from the PORNBIO dispute and RfC, then we will have a new guideline. Or not. — Becksguy (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• :The only disputed thing about the current PORNBIO is whether it should be even more restrictive. Epbr123 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. As Epbr123 quite accurately notes, the disputed tag on WP:PORNBIO relates to arguments that its text should be made even more restrictive. Talk page discussion as well as repeated AFD/DRV outcomes demonstrate the consensus that, while AVN Awards are seen as the most important for their industry, some AVN Award categories lack the significance to contribute substantially to notability. The article lacks any reliable sourcing for biographical content, and several of the references are dubious. In the absence of any shred of reliably sourced biographical information, deletion of the article is consistent with established practice for BLPS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - The disputed PORNBIO includes arguments that would: (1) leave it as is, (2) make it more restrictive, or (3) delete it completely. NOTABILITY is a guideline, not policy, and SNGs have evolved to handle special cases and niche categories, and for clarification. We have a long standing consensus, for some six years, that BORNBIO (before all the recent messing around with it) applied to PORN actors. Not only does this article pass the consensus version of PORNBIO, but it includes two awards, which satisfies BIO1E. This is not the place to argue what PORNBIO should, or should not be, rather this is the place to argue whether this article meets PORNBIO in it's long standing consensus version. Which it clearly does as per: "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award". Arguing that this AdD should be adjudicated based on a possible future version of PORNBIO violates CRYSTAL, common sense, and due process. If and when PORNBIO is properly modified with community wide consensus, then that version will apply to future AfD discussions, but not here and not now. — Becksguy (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2012 (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.