Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominik Trojan

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 delete. The arguments that he fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO are clearly stronger. Note that WP:ARTIST #3 requires independent review, not just the existence of a collective body of work. Kevin (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Trojan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - User:1989luke, the creator, has apparently been blocked for repeated creation of hoax articles but this article does not fall into that category. There seem to be some independent reviews which discuss this actor specifically. At any rate, if you're trying to determine whether he's notable or not, be prepared to see alot of penises. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. smithers - talk 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete Fails the nominator's mentions. Dear God... why? Cutno (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep He has main roles in at least 39 published films and has directed two. He meets WP:ARTIST under the criteria for a collective body of work. If someone looks hard enough they'll probably find a reference to some sort of porn-award that will satisfy WP:PORNBIO too. If this were not pornography but, say, horror film, this article would never be raised for deletion. Ash (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - These popular films have had many reviews in gay interest magazines (periodicals). Appearing in so many films, it would be remarkable if there were not such reviews. A couple of references have been added to the article. Ash (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (PORNBIO applicability) PORNBIO is for actors not directors. Though Trojan's notability is primarily as a pornographic actor, his work as a director should be taken into account. Consequently PORNBIO should not be the only consideration here. Ash (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Ash is correct and this article wouldn't be in AfD if the boy had acted with his clothes on. We haven't proved that he meets WP:PORNBIO criteria but we must not forget that Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Major roles in 40 films globally distributed equals notability. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am suspicious as to whether the person who uploaded the accompanying photo really owns the copyright. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (photo) Checking the uploader's contribution history and the image itself there seems no particular reason to doubt that the upload is genuine. A false claim would mean faking the EXIF data, which seems highly unlikely in this case. Ash (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The assertions being made by 96.233.40.199 are plainly false. JBsupreme (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant roles in numerous productions [1], many under the name of Eugene Procci. It must be remembered that porn stars rarely get coverage in mainstream press. He does seem though to have the attention of his genre [2][3]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't established by someone's Google hits or number of films they've been in. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. Epbr123 (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is however found in significant roles in numerous productions and in having a large genre fanbase. If he was not appreciated by someone somewhere, his carrer would have ended after 1 film. The links were posted to show the significant roles in multiple productions and to show genre interest in his work. And please, though apparently prevalent for porn actors, WP:IDONTLIKE is also not a valid argument or attitude in AFD discussions... not in this one nor the numerous others you've nominated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on discussing the article, not myself. It's pointless accusing people of WP:IDONTLIKE when they can just as easily accuse you of WP:ILIKEIT. Epbr123 (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your recent contributions here, perhaps you should try that yourself before expecting it from others? Ash (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
To Epbr123: I do not watch porn read porn or like porn... and I have voiced my personal dislike for porn at past porn AFDs. What I do like and respect are the carefully considered consensual guidelines created by editors long before I ever heard of WIkipeddia... and I do not support the AFDing of any article that meets guideline. However, thank you for allowing me to again repeat my dislike for the subject and reaffirm my respect for the guidelines that allow even such articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael do you know if any of the films this person has participated in are considered to be "notable" (as defined by Wikipedia)?? I ask because we regularly keep articles for seiyu who completely and utterly lack non-trivial coverage due their voice acting career. If I can be convinced that his role in a portion of these films is significant, and that the films are actually notable, I might be persuaded to change my vote for the sake of consistency and sanity. JBsupreme (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside form an Admin who is lightening their workload, perhaps let's get a better informed input from some of the other editors at WP:WikiProject Pornography, as they may be far more willing to spend time in research that requires them to look at the images that accompany the non-mainstream media searches, in presenting a list of genre-specific awards and genre-specific sourcing that would show genre notability for his films and thus his body of work, and so expand the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (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.