Epona (IRC services) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contested prod per [1] and [2] --Tothwolf (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically I think this is supposed to be undeleted once someone objects to the WP:PROD... but this will just go to AFD and be deleted unless there actually are sources. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Correa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The majority of KEEP !votes do not appear to be based on policy or guidelines, in contrast to the DELETE !votes. More than one KEEP !vote explicitly notes that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO ([3], [4]). When asked to review their closure, User:Cirt first appeared to agree that the article should have been closed as delete, but suggested that I give editors more time to find references. When asked to overturn their closure and delete, their response was "nope". Following this, they started a thread at BLPN "help you to get some more eyes on it" even though what I had asked for was the deletion of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nom misrepresents my comments. I will assume good faith that this was an honest mistake. This comment I made [5] suggested that I believe the AfD consensus to keep the article was a reasonable one, and that if Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) really felt like it he could re-nom for AfD at a later date. I was not endorsing his view of delete. Cirt (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly misunderstood to what you were applying "seems pretty reasonable". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. :) No worries, Cirt (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Sorry, DC, but this diff says "The article as it is now makes a pretty good case for notability, too", which is not an explicit note that it doesn't meet GNG. The second note also fails to be "explicit". I see absolutely nothing wrong with starting a thread on BLPN when questions have been raised about sourcing, regardless of what has been asked for. I'd suggest taking Cirt's advice and looking at a renom in a couple of months, if the article hasn't been sufficiently improved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explicit was clearly too strong a word. I have struck it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should strike "not" as well, since "makes a good case for notability" is in no way, shape, or form a note that it doesn't meet GNG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your point, but we probably interpret the remark differently. The diffs are there and I'm sure people will note this discussion as well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I cannot seriously bring myself to say that the close is clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think the close is correct. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The sourcing is extremely thin... most of the sources just say Vladimir Correa appeared in a movie with a certain title. Almost all of the sourced prose in the article is just summarizing such sources. The best claim to notability, that "He was one of the first notable gay porn stars to also appear in a number of heterosexual and bisexual pornographic films" remains unreferenced. Looking at the AFD, it seems probable that some people were fooled by the fact that this "looks" like it's well-referenced. However, I can't view some of the best potential sources that are in books. This was not an easy close but I think it was good to err on the side of caution here. If you can actually show the sources are all trivial coverage, then I would vote delete in a new AFD... but I don't think a delete close would have been appropriate here. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see this diff from BLPN re sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please also see Delicious carbuncle's later remarks and use of the argument bullshit in the same discussion.—Ash (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closing was done properly. There are other ways to deal with sourcing issues besides DRV. --Jmundo (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. I was about to close as delete when Cirt closed as keep. I think that many of the keep opinions are based on procedural issues or have no policy or guideline backing. The strongest keep argument by User:Dream Focus was refuted, and did not sway subsequent arguments to delete. In contrast, the delete arguments have a clear backing in the WP:PORNBIO guideline. Kevin (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is irrelevant if the GNG is met, yes? Hobit (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that no-one argued that the subject passes WP:GNG, unless you count the refuted argument I mentioned above. Kevin (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see an issue with Cirt's close. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and, if I understand correctly, trout-slap nom for paradoxically trying to invert the meaning of my comment at AfD. What I meant, pretty clearly, is that the article in its current state, is within WP:GNG pretty well. Maybe it is me not being of English mother language, but it baffles me how my comment could have been interpreted as a note that it doesn't meet GNG. --Cyclopia^talk 02:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]