Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talvin DeMachio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced BLP of gay porn performer who appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, a poorly judged deletion request from this nominator on the topic of gay pornography. Rather than following the guidance of BEFORE and making a token effort by searching, say, Wikipedia or Google for references to awards won and then recommending improvement, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) has rushed to a full deletion. In less than five minutes I have tracked down and added several awards and nominations that prove PORNBIO has been met. Could somebody please advise at what stage such targeted nominations on gay topics should be considered disruptive editing? It is becoming quite difficult to assume good faith when there is such a distinct pattern of poor nominations on such a specific genre. Ash (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I started a thread on WP:AN to forestall exactly these kinds of accusations when I nominated several unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs of gay porn performers some weeks ago. Ash is aware of the thread and should understand that the issue remains unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs not "gay topics", since we have discussed this many times. Anyone is welcome to start an RfC at anytime if they feel that my AfD nominations are disruptive rather than productive. While I do not agree that DeMachio clearly passes WP:PORNBIO, at least there has been some attention drawn to the article and some attempt to source it (although http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/ProbeAwards1997.html is clearly not a reliable source). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rainbowcollexion states "The incomplete list below is taken from Adam Gay Video Directories", as the AGVD is not available on-line this is a handy source. I could instead just put in an enigmatic reference to the printed AGVD without including any URL, this would seem pedantic and unhelpful for the layman reader. In no way is this a justification for deleting the article.
  - Thank you for the ANI, I was unaware of it (having only started to contribute to this area in January) and it makes your deletion campaign clear. The points raised in the thread with regard to your unacceptable behavior in raising deletion nominations without following BEFORE are true two months on, and makes you appear to be on an established and entrenched campaign of destructively attacking the topic of gay pornography. As stated in that thread, you are prepared to raise AfDs knowing that awards have been won and so the subject of the article does meet PORNBIO just that sources have not yet been added and with the false rationale that these may improve the articles by encouraging someone to work on them (a false rationale you have repeated here). Such deletion requests are not just poor judgement, they are a deliberate and sustained mis-use of the DELETE guidelines and process. Ash (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Carbuncle, the question is if you followed BEFORE, which was a policy last time I looked, and not a guideline. In the light of the ANI thread comment "Nominating biographies for deletion without trying to establish whether or not they are sourcable is disruptive", your answer to this question is quite relevant. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:BEFORE is not and never was a policy. It isn't even a guideline. It is a convenience redirect to a section of a procedure. I have no interest in debating this here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ash, please stop distorting my words. You have been involved in several discussions wherein I have linked to that AN thread. I do not know why you have not read it until now, but it says nothing that you haven't heard from me before. Feel free to take action at the appropriate forum, but stop making these accusations here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not believe I have quoted you here so I fail to see how I am distorting your words. Your unacceptable behavior is as characterized by other editors on the AN thread you provided above and your statement in that thread is clear, I suggest any other interested editors read it for themselves. If you are not prepared to accept on good faith that I was unaware of the AN then that's your problem, it is not particularly relevant to the issue of your behavior. I am not making accusations, I am pointing out relevant background to highlight that this AfD was not raised in the way that BEFORE recommends. Such a deletion request and any more that you raise in this way should be speedily kept on the basis that the policy has not been applied. Ash (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't know how much effort Delicious carbuncle put into researching the subject before making the nomination, and I think we need to assume good faith in this instance. The award nominations DeMachio has are quite obscure and difficult to find. I note it took you quite a while to find reliable sources for them. Epbr123 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, your point is invalidated by the fact that I included archive.org links to the original grabbys.com site for the Grabby Awards before you made any comment in the AfD. I have continued to improve the article with further sources but with DC's background of lengthy debate on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films, s/he is fully aware of sources such as XBIZ.com, AVN.com etc. which would be some of the first places to look for suitable sources. Ash (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As you know, a single Grabby Award nomination isn't enough to pass PORNBIO. Also, XBIZ.com and AVN.com provide no evidence of DeMachio passing PORNBIO, so I don't really see your second point Epbr123 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's odd as the first match I get in XBIZ is a reference to his award in 2009, see http://www.xbiz.com/news/video/105763. I used the award site in preference but I'll add this one too. Ash (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, only a single nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I will spell it out for you as you seem to be having problems hearing me. You made the point that XBIZ provided "no evidence" when in fact using XBIZ immediately provides a source for his Hookie. You were wrong. The Grabby.com reference was for his Grabby. That makes two not one nominations. Ash (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        To spell out what I'm saying, you've accused Delicious carbuncle of being disruptive for not checking XBIZ and AVN before making the nomination. Those websites do not show DeMachio to be notable, so there's no proof he didn't check XBIZ and AVN first. Making accusations against users without evidence isn't very nice. Epbr123 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I did not make any such accusation on this page. You have artificially reduced my statement to the examples of possible sites I gave, please make the effort to check what I actually wrote on this before paraphrasing me. I have not accused Delicious carbuncle of disruptive editing, you appear to be taking his/her interpretation as fact rather than reading my words. I asked for advice on when targeted nominations on gay topics should be considered disruptive editing. As for being "nice", you appear to not have applied the same high standard to Delicious carbuncle's pattern of edits over the last few months. Ash (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless reliable sources can be found for the awards and nominations. Epbr123 (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grabby and Hooky awards now adequately sourced. Epbr123 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Especially since the article is now sourced appropriately. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability asserted. Notability sourced. Nuff said. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No question of notability and <personal attack removed>. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.