Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolf Hudson (2nd nomination)

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. — TKD::Talk 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf Hudson

Wolf Hudson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Found while looking through the articles for speedy deletion. The reason was: does not meet WP:PORNBIO. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Possible merge with one of his films, such as Porn Pig Playhouse? No, just delete it. If none of his work is notable, neither is he. Qworty 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- I was the editor who added the speedy tag but the subject (who posted his own article) wanted to "holdon"; no worries there. I quoted the provisions of WP:PORNBIO to him, and he doesn't meet them. Accounting4Taste 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Keb25 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails both BIO and the proposed PORNBIO. I do find the movie titles hilarious though. Only one of his film credits is recognised by the IMDB, and even that is listed as still filming. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Andrew Lenahan that WP:PORNBIO was explained and has not been met. The 'multiple orgasisms' nearly makes him notable, but the necklace of notability is still a few pearls short. Colonel Tom 13:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The brand new editor technically was told about the requirement and even responded in the talk pages (I spent some time formatting the responses and adding sig tags to clear up who stated what. And very likely thought that simply responding to those brusk decrees from on high was enough. I messaged them on the editor's talk page but it's still quite likely they don't know what exactly to add and how to ref to fulfill the requirements although it seems likely the article's subject meets at least one of the WP:PORNBIO requirements. Benjiboi 18:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- NO NOTABILITY whatsoever and I am so sick and tired of this sort of article popping up with no significance, no notability and blatantly for the purpose some guy who took his clothes off in front of a camera to brag to his friends or advertise illegal sex services -- DELETE IMMEDATELY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.65 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-- This article is pointless to keep and should have never been written. DELETE IMMEDIATELY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roz Lipschitz (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteBy all means DELETE this article! It is bad and not notable - why is it that Gay Porn Stars have the worst articles written on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Redford (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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.