Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Ashlee

Christopher Ashlee

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

Unsourced BLP. May fail WP:PORNBIO - There is no reference to establish that he won the award. EuroPride (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- He obviously fails WP:N. Raa G gio (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes PORNBIO - the previous source was deleted and not replaced as can be seen in the page history. One suitable reference is http://www.grabbys.com/PastWinners.html and the award itself is described with other potential source material at Grabby Award and Grabby recipients. In this case a tag for improving references would have been more appropriate than raising for deletion. Ash (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the repeated deletion of sources, including grabby.com, I thought the following may be useful in resolving the issue:
  - http://business.avn.com/articles/34692.html - an independent report on the original nominations explicitly naming Ashlee.
  - http://grabbys.com/nominations-2009.html - click on "All" or "Scenes" to see full listing with Ashlee named.
  - http://www.xbiz.com/avi/101369 - XBIZ listing for BlackBalled6 showing full cast. This listing is not promotional for any particular reseller.
- Ash (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ash. He co-won a Grabby Award and passes WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ash. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no in depth coverage of this person, anywhere, fails BIO and GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that 4 resources have been added. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of them a reliable source. Retail wanking sites and wanking-fan blogs aren't reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the grabby site itself, which has now been added? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This man had 8 co-winners in the Best Cum scene category in the 2009 Grabbys, run by the tiny free weekly Grab Magazine in Chicago. If one actually believes that "award" is enough to hang an entire encyclopedic biography on, then that's the case for the other 8. Of course, all 9 will not have any biographical information or even correct birth names. It pretty clearly demonstrates how low the bar has been set by the porn project's guidelines. These are not the Academy Awards (though i would argue that even an academy award winner no one has seen fit to profile should have a wikipedia article; it's just for truly notable awards like the Academy's, every winner does get covered heavily in reliable sources). For instance, there are about 25 Academy Award categories (but frequent co-winners, so lets say about 35 winners a year). The "Grabbys" have 31 categories. Of these "best group" includes five winners every year, "best duo" is obvious, best "three way" ditto, best "rimming scene" is for two winners, and "best cum scene" appears to range from 2 to as many as 9. So what we have is a Grab magazine porn marketing event (the magazine is heavily porn and escort focused -- you can dowload sample issues at it's amateur-hour website) creating 44 "winners" a year. That's more than the academy awards does! And is this the academy awards of porn, or even of gay porn? Nope: That would be the GayVN Awards, which have a mammoth 44 categories of their own (each category with about 10 nominees) cranking out between them potentially 100 new unsourced wikipedia blps a year. Amazing!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's all correct. Take up policy with WP:PORNBIO, not article by article. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and non-notable. Porn sites as cites do not cut it. Jack Merridew 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the grabby site itself? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You want to include porn references, as long as they're not porn references. Is that right? The grabby site stands, if none other. This performer won that award. Do you have a particular POV that you want this excluded? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That award doesn't mean boo and your link doesn't even mention this fellow. If I've a PoV here, it's that articles require proper sources that discuss their subjects in depth. Jack Merridew 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't think the award doesn't mean boo, but you may want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grabby_Awards for the full history, verifying that, indeed, it does mean boo. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is just no coverage to ever create a well rounded informative biography of this person. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the article a "stub", not worthy of deletion, right? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]