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. There is a clear consensus to delete, and the arguments against a merge or redirect are also persuasive enough to discount that outcome. Kevin (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post closure note: when closing this I did take into account, but failed to note that several editors made the same argument twice, or offered a modified argument after the relist. As I have weighed the totality of arguments rather than vote counting, this did not had any impact on the outcome. Kevin (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christy twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Biography of "twin brothers who were gay pornographic actors". Tagged as unsourced since July 2007. Fails WP:PORN and general notability guideline. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable pornographic actors, no references. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline; no indication of potential for article expansion beyond stub. Even lacks reliable sources for basic identity claims.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to List of male performers in gay porn films; I've been sourcing the list including cataloging who won what award and when. Although I have little doubt there is at least a handful of reliable sources, I do question if any good article can be made here unless one or both becomes notable for other career(s), and even then these are likely stage names so those connections also have to be made. The list article can house a few sentences on these two. Another possibility is an article on twin actors which would still mean this article is merged/redirected. In any case deletion is not needed here. -- Banjeboi 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: relisted to obtain more comments on the merge suggestion. Tim Song (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note that the article which Benjiboi proposed merging this one into above is presently also being considered for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list won't be deleted. -- Banjeboi 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per BLP utterly unreferenced biography.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens do not merge redirect - since then we'd be associating someone with porn with no reference - that's the worst possible outcome.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • These guys are known for gay porn, need a ref? Here's a couple. There BLP concern addressed, no fuss no muss. -- Banjeboi 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article needs the ref, not me. Unreferenced porn articles need deleted. --Scott Mac (Doc) 21:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a reason why the ref provided is insufficient? Tim Song (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What ref? I see no references on the article. An unreferenced article claiming that someone is a gay porn star ought to be speedy deleted.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You asked for refs, Benjiboi gave you refs. Instead of adding them to the article, you instead shout "BLP speedy delete" because refs that are right in front of you were not added to the article. Very well, then. I added them. Not much, but enough to prove that "Christy twins" were indeed gay porn actors during the relevant time period. I can't find an RS giving their names, so I took them out. Problem solved. Tim Song (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I opined speedy delete because the article was unreferenced. I wasn't looking for someone to "give me refs" but to put references in the article, if the references are in the article, then my objection becomes moot, and as you say that problem is solved. You rightly have removed unsourced information form the article - all I was saying is the same principle applies to all the material in the article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You may be a bit confused how AfD works. We don't delete something unless the article is fixed, instead we determine if the problems are fixable. Your statement was calling for a speedy and I showed that your reasoning - while perhaps sincere - was misplaced because we can ref they have indeed done gay porn. -- Banjeboi 02:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nope. BLP trumps that. Unreferenced negative bios get speedy deleted under the CSD G10. That says noting about "fixable" it is just a question of whether it has been sourced or not.--Scott Mac (Doc) 03:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Are you saying that being a gay porn star is a negative? The article doesn't have much else. Is being a garbage man negative? A lawyer? Hobit (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG guidelines. Why was this relisted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • • • • • • • Yes, for the purposes of BLP is is certainly negative. For BLP negative is anything that, if untrue, would be damaging or embarrassing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nom we assume your opening statement is for deletion, thus this is a duplicate !vote. -- Banjeboi 02:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in my relisting comment above, "relisted to obtain more comments on the merge suggestion". Tim Song (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my original !vote. Merging inadequately sourced content which does not sufficiently demonstrate the notability of its subject resolves nothing satisfactorily. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - glad to see the referencing now fixed - but not convinced this meets notability.--Scott Mac (Doc) 03:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect and merge It's a clearly useful navigational aid and per WP:PRESERVE there is no reason to delete when a redirect will do. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What basis is there in policy for maintaining redirects for otherwise unnotable subjects, or for including them in lists that are supposedly limited to notable subjects? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll turn that around. Is there a policy that states that we delete redirects because the topic isn't notable? Redirects are navigational aids and not bound by WP:N as far as I'm aware. Hobit (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On looking, the policy is here: [1]. Which supports having a "redirect to a 'list of minor entities'-type article which is a collection of brief descriptions for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles."

But this isn't a redirect to a "list of minor entities-type article." Besides, the related discussion on the proposed target article has shown a consensus for limiting that list to notable, well-sourced subjects. And the justification/"reason" for the redirect in the guideline is "too short for own article," which is very different from "not notable." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2009 (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.