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. Consensus is that the subject fails PORNSTAR/GNG. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Pierre Fitch

Pierre Fitch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Not my field of interest but this seems questionable for WP:PORNSTAR with none of this seeming convincing enough for the applicable notability, with only one apparent award, and it only being a nomination. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC) SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as agree that WP:PORNSTAR is not passed, as no awards, no groundbreaking movies or genres,,no significant mainstream coverage either so WP:BASIC is not reached . The music career is not notable yet. Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Believe he at least passes WP:GNG and even WP:ENT, since he's one of the subjects profiled in a book called "Gay Porn Heroes" by J.C. Adams, about the most influential performers in the field. A quick Google search came up with this article in a notable publication ( The Advocate), and mentions his inclusion in the book. Subject has also apparently won or been nominated for some awards,( and here); just don't know how significant they are. But "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" is all ENT requires, while GNG only needs "significant coverage in reliable sources;" and again, per Google, he clearly has both. Especially when you consider his first AfD was 10 years ago and he's apparently still around and relevant ( here) and ( here). That's a pretty notable shelf-life for any porn performer. X4n6 ( talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC
• Comment its the briefest of passing mentions in The Advocate and the Orlando Sentinel is another passing mention, the reference to his fanbase in the Gay U.K ref is based on 215,000 likes on his facebook which is not a remarkable number at all and is not reliable because likes can be bought in bulk. The book "Gay Porn Heroes" is about 100 gay porn actors so it is not very exclusive and at 252 pages in total for 100 actors its not very detailed. Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Reply It's really not surprising since you tried to refute every single point I made - that there wasn't a single argument you made that I agree with. The mention in the Advocate highlighted his presence in a book entitled "Gay Porn Heroes." By the title alone, there is already the inference that the list is inherently notable in that genre. But for the Advocate, which I believe, is pretty much the gay publication of record, to mention him among all the others in the book - only further illustrates his notability. Otherwise, why mention him at all? Also, the author of the book is himself notable in that field, based on his prolific contributions. He could very likely be considered an authoritative source on the subject of notability. But your notion that 100 gay actors is not exclusive, is nonsense when you consider the thousands, if not 10s of thousands (or more) of gay porn performers the writer had to choose from. Again, just more evidence of GNG. And 215,000 Facebook likes is textbook ENT. Whether the numbers are exact or not is irrelevant. Because the threshold is simply a " cult following." So in a niche market like porn, gay porn specifically, a six figure following is easily a "cult following." Hell, a 10th of that would qualify. And The Advocate and the Orlando Sentinel are both reliable sources. Nor did you even attempt to refute my response that his last AfD was a decade ago - and yet his fans are still talking about him for whatever reasons. Again: cult following. Bottom line: we're only here to judge notability, nothing more. Every argument you made only confirms that he passes notability according to every threshold I've referenced. I'm really not invested enough to do more research - but I suspect that if I did, I would end up changing my !vote from Keep to Strong Keep, or even Speedy Keep. Because your arguments alone, while clearly not your intention, have only made a stronger case for keeping it. X4n6 ( talk) 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Passing mentions in articles which contain no content regarding the subject himself except his name fail GNG requirements by a country light-year. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• DELETE Being a gay porn hero sounds like a plaintive request to turn off the GNG and PORNBIO for this person. No ta. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:19, 27 March 2016 (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.