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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Torres (porn star)[edit]

This porn actor has credits from 13 videos and doesn't meet the WP:PORN BIO proposals. Not notable. feydey 19:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The WP:PORN BIO proposals have not been accepted by the community yet. One key point of discussion is that the "100 videos" test would exclude all but one (maybe two) gay porn stars if applied in the way that Feydey is trying to apply it. Are we going to say that Wikipedia does not accept articles on gay porn stars as a matter of policy? This article was nominated for deletion 1 hour and 12 minutes after it was created, leaving very, very little time for it to grow into a worthwhile article. Furthermore, I believe that, as the star of several films that focus on Latino men, he qualifies under Item 8 of the proposed criteria: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." Zeromacnoo 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This nomination should never have happened, nominator really "jumped the gun" on this one.

Before nominating an AfD:

Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a template.

This policy wasn't followed; it couldn't possibly have been given the short time lapse between the creation of the article and its nomination. Additionally, Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) is not applicable, it needs to be finalized and revised to set forth reasonable standards of notability in gay porn. As it stands now, it could only be applied to straight porn; several attempts to change the language in discussion have failed or been ignored. I invite everyone to come back to the table and discuss this on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) page; if that is going to be policy, it needs to be fixed so that it can be used as a criteria for including gay porn stars, not a weapon to elminate all but a handful of them. I'm moving the rest of my comnments here to the Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) page so as to give more editors a chance to consider them; however, I will point out that for the two studios Mr. Torres worked for 2004, his output equalled 16% of Big City Video's entire output for the year and 21% of Raging Stallion Studios' output for that year.—Chidom ^talk  21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails per WP:BIO, WP:NN, and WP:PORN BIO. It doesnt matter whether or not its a purposal or not, its a reason to either delete or keep. Also we shouldnt keep porn stars with very little experience. A few movies is hardly notable. SynergeticMaggot 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I'll say it again, as has been said many times before, you cannot judge a gay porn performer's output by straight porn standards. As I noted above, Mr. Torres's output for 2004 is hardly "A few movies"; it comprised 16% of the output of one of the studios he worked for, and 21% of the other. Both are niche studios within the gay porn genre (which some would argue is a niche itself); he more than meets the requirement of item 8 in the draft of Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors); his output in his niche has been prolific. You want to use the proposed guidelines, fine—he meets them.—Chidom ^talk  20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does matter that it's a proposal. The terms of that policy will change before it is approved; this article not meeting the current criteria doesn't mean that it won't in the future. Nominating an article so quickly is against policy and smacks of POV prejudice.—Chidom ^talk  23:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. What I choose to support deletion is up to me. PORN BIO can in fact be used on AfD's and it applies here. The nomination is here for 5 days, if you want it saved, I'd advise you to start working on it. SynergeticMaggot 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If SynergeticMaggot doesn't need a good reason, neither do I. -Smahoney 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The proposed guideline may not pass since it is biased. It should not be used as a reason to delete, especially where other reasons for notability have been rasied by other editors. Vegaswikian 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is in fact a reason why I decided delete. It does not meet requirements of any bio, let alone the proposed. No awards, has not been in 100 movies, no verification, and non notable. These are all valid reasons why we shouldnt keep every person in the porn industry. SynergeticMaggot 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the star of several films that focus on Latino men, he qualifies under Item 8 of the proposed criteria: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." Zeromacnoo 22:35, 31 July 2006 (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.