Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (porn star)
- 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 of the debate was delete (7 good deletes, the 5 keeps were weak, unexplained, anonymous, first contribution and anonymous, in that order). Proto||type 12:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Dalton (porn star)[edit]
There are several Mark Daltons of varying degrees of notability - I'd say this is one of the less notable. Total externally verifiable data: pretty much zero, if we use only reliable sources. Article is unencyclopaedic in tone. Porncruft, in other words. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion for now on notability, but when one googles for "Mark Dalton" the first thing that shows up is his personal webpage and multiple other porn sites. He has much more of a chance at notability than the male Gauge. JoshuaZ 15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, actually a lot of those are for a genuine (non-porn) actor by the same name - that's not the porn star on IMDB, it's someone else. Just zis Guy you know? 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the very first listing for "Mark Dalton" on Google is for this exact guy. YellowPigNowNow 22:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep it seems he just squeaks into notability. Someone has to be the least notable notable, right? maybe it's Mark. By the way, as for verifiability I think you could check out his videos to see if his claims measure up. :-) Carlossuarez46 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn porncruft. Eusebeus 16:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn porn star. --
Rory09617:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per nom. Osomec 17:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - v. For great justice. 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable porncruft. Brian G. Crawford 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely verifiable. Borderline "notable". We can't use the same standard for porn stars as we do for regular actors.
- Delete. Participants in the commercial sex trade are not notable per se. Monicasdude 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Monicasdude. --Khoikhoi 02:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Guy. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if the criteria for deletion is that porn actors are not notable, then they should all be deleted. My argument is that they ARE notable in their own profession. Furthermore, the listing of porn stars allows a centralized listing of information so that you don't have to weed through the plethora of useless links and pages that have no pertinant information. If there are other "Mark Dalton"s out there, then certainly the designation "(porn star)" should alleviate the confusion. Archer 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to say how absurd I think it is that all of these porn star articles are going up for deletion. If you check the playboy playmates on wikipedia, you'll notice the inclusion of tons of them, many having their own pages. I did a bunch more research on this man,Mark Dalton, and he was the 2002 Men magazine man of the year, the equivalent of playmate of the year for gay men. Suggesting these are somehow unworthy, while keeping all of the rest of the articles for hot women, is just hypocritical. YellowPigNowNow 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP--Definitely keep. Dalton is one of the most notorious/famous gay (for pay) stars circa 2006.
- 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.