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. CitiCat ^♫ 03:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barresi[edit]

Paul Barresi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A proposed deletion for this reason: "Article reads like an advertisement and subject is hard to verify so Notabilty is called into question". I don't believe it should go through prod, so I'm moving it here for more widespread debate. No opinion. Ral315 » 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article is nothing but Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Fails WP:OR. The was a Paul Barresi who was known as an Anthony Pellicano operative. The article makes no mention of it. Just about all the footnotes are not independent from Paul Barresi. Delete, however with no objection to recreating the article using reliable source material that is independent of Paul Barresi. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject nominated for a GayVN award in 2003 award, satisfies criterion #1 of WP:PORNBIO. Caknuck 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Gay pornography, not the most pleasant of topics. Certainly there are quite a few references, but the article is a bit of a mess. No vote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-It is incredible how many gay porn stars have tried to use Wikipedia for advertising purpuses. Mr. Barresi used to call up potential actors for his porn videos and tell them to log on to his Wikipedia article to learn all about him. -- THE PLEICANO SECTION was deleted as it was not sourced properly and many of the sources that were sited were self-published by Barresi himself! This is against Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia has also been abused as it was used by Barresi or some one acting as him to make threats to people that were in controversy with Barresi! this should be deledte not because it lacks interest but because it has been a channel for self-promotion and abuse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.65 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What a mess. Subject is notable, but the article needs to be re-written from scratch after the second paragraph. Can we cross-list this to the WP:LGBT? Bearian 00:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and write a well-sourced stub in its place, because apparently this is a notable subject but the article is junk. In fact, it used to be worse until I got rid of most of it. MessedRocker (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Several reliable sources have been added, and there are more available. He's definitely notable, so all that needs to happen is a rewrite - that's not grounds for deleting it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• RE-WRITE hmmmmmmmmm what new references were added???? Nearly every reference listed is a self-published one BUT there are a few reliable sources that can create a good short article or a stub. The subject has abused Wikipedia to promote his book and his life and to advertise. A new article which is organized, quoted properly and encylopedic can and should be created but if no one is willing to do this it should be deleted! A hard - copy of a real encylopedia would NEVER have this article in it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.66 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - What is all this nonsense about self-published sources being "against Wikipedia's policies?" Anyone who thinks so, read WP:SELFPUB. This article has undergone recent vandalism by a group of editors who have a political agenda, one in opposition to the personage of Paul Baressi. Editors making comments here should familiarize themselves with the protocols for adding comments, and they should know what they're talking about before posting. The fact is, this person is notable under WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO, warrants an article, and should have an article. Echoing SatyrTN, it needs a re-write. There are no grounds whatsoever for deleting this article.--72.76.100.27 18:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThe above entry presents a valid point. It is important that this article is re-written and KEPT NEUTRAL and that the references are good. But if this cannot be done it should just be reduced to a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.67 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With approximately two dozen different reliable sources cited, the subject meets WP:BIO and meets criterion #1 of WP:PORN BIO as well given the GayVN award nomination. This is clearly a cleanup issue. bbx 02:55, 8 September 2007 (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.