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 keep. Disregarding the comments on contributors, rather than content; there appears to be consensus that the available sources indicate that the subject of the article meets the relevant notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost ( talk) 01:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Raging Stallion Studios

Raging Stallion Studios (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

The sources do not prove any notability. I did some research myself and spite the company name comes out a lot (it's a company in the show business after all) I couldn't find any independent, extended, in-depth, secondary source which is what it is needed to establish notability. AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 09:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn by nominator -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ AlejandroLeloirRey: You will need to follow these steps to have this AfD withdrawn. -- Kbabej ( talk) 22:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP with only trivial mentions by independent reliable secondary sources. Porn trade press consists of repackaged press releases and routine announcements. Porn or mainstream, industry awards count for little, if anything, towards WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There's coverage from Instinct about when the studio decided to go bareback; Out News about incorporating a MAGA hat in a film; Hornet about the release of a controversial film; and others. XBIZ has tons of articles on the studio. PinkNews called the studio a " major studio" and " high profile". Vice called the studio " one of America's biggest producers of gay porn". I think there's definitely enough to support a short article. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kbabej: none of these is an article about raging stallion, they are all article about people who work for raging stallion and incidental mention of the studio. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 18:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Did you even look at the articles? The Instinct, Out, and Hornet articles are solely about the studio. ?? -- Kbabej ( talk) 18:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kbabej: for "instinct" you are right actually, is "Hornet" a blog?. anyhow, those sources are either focused only on the fact that the company is doing bare back movies or are mentions. not a significant coverage as required in WP:CORPDEPTH -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I fixed the link. Sorry about that. Hornet is a news site, and has bylines. As for the mentions, they describe the subject well. But the first three articles are in depth in RS. -- Kbabej ( talk) 19:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Hornet is a social networking site, which, by its own description, includes curated content. The key measure of reliability is that a the source has a good reputation for fact checking and that it is working in its fact-reporting voice. The Hornet article relies heavily on what Raging Stallion and its filmmakers say. Not very strong. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per Kbabej-- Yiğitcank ( talk) 19:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A disruptive nom at best. Raging Stallion is the largest gay porn producer in the world. Easily meets GNG, etc. Nom, again, has willfully ignored following WP:Before and should likely be banned from Xfd for their disruption. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 09:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

this is not the fist time you personal attack me. I have created an article and improved many. So far when I have nominated an article, most of the times, was deleted because my nomination was right. now, leave me alone and if you care improve the source. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 09:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Is this your own opinion or it can be proved by sources? so far I can't see any source fulfilling WP:CORPDEPTH but it seems that more than one here believes that everything related to porn should have a free pass to wikipedia no matter if there are no sources. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 09:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

There is no personal attack, I’m pointing out you’ve again made mistakes, and again ignored WP:Before, these are apparent facts.

Cleaning up articles is fine, deleting ones on notable subjects is not. You don’t seem to recognize the difference and in violation of WP:DINC, seem to think others should drop everything their working on to prove you wrong. I did that last week and I’m no longer willing to play your game. If you’re not willing or able to do the needed research then move onto something you are good at, it’s unfair to make others clean up your mistakes. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 10:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Read carefully WP:CORPDEPTH, than if you have sources that fulfill it add it and stop talking to me. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 10:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ AlejandroLeloirRey: It does seem somewhat odd that for an editor that focuses so much on deletion of gay porn bios, you wouldn't know Raging Stallion is a major player in that field. Was a WP:BEFORE done on this? You've been asked in the past to slow down on article deletion. Not all gay porn bios are the same. -- Kbabej ( talk) 00:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kbabej: I know raging stalion for being a big company in the gay porn industry, what I didn't know is that it is actually notable. I f you read carefully WP:CORPDEPTH you shall see that being a big company doesn't necessarily imply being notable. I will keep nominating all the bad article that I can't improve myself. so far it seems that 90% of my nominations where right and wikipedia encourage us to be bold. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ AlejandroLeloirRey: WP does encourage editors to WP:BEBOLD, but a thorough WP:BEFORE would have shown this company is notable. Not all gay porn articles are the same. I found six articles solely about the company (not including the XBIZ ones). I have no problem with deletion nominations, but editors must carry out the appropriate steps beforehand. -- Kbabej ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kbabej: is this a trial? I searched for sources but I kept finding only mentions related to porn actor that have worked with them. i added your sources. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ AlejandroLeloirRey: My intention isn't to make this into a trial, and I'm trying to be civil and WP:AGF. An editor opens themselves up to criticism, however, when they do not follow the required steps for deletion discussions. I have no ill intent in saying this: I would encourage you to slow down on the deletion nominations and do thorough BEFORE checks on each. That's just my opinion, though. -- Kbabej ( talk) 22:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep the sources that Kbabej and others have found more than indicate notability under WP:GNG. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

when you say other who do you refer to? so far Kbabej is the only one who showed some sources(three that pass passing mention). -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 22:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I did more digging and found three further sources. There's a Hornet article on how "Raging Stallion’s Move to Bareback Sex Marks a Huge Shift in Today’s Gay Porn"; an Xtra article on a how Raging Stallion did a porn spoof of the film Clockwork Orange; and a very in depth review by GayDemon, a NSFW website. -- Kbabej ( talk) 00:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

can you just shortly include them into the article and let me know when you are down so that withdraw my nomination.-- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 09:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Again, that’s not how this works. All anyone has to do is show that a good article is possible, not actually improve the article. Someone else will have to do the actual work of improving the article. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 12:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Gleeanon409: this is the third time I ask you to leave me alone. stop chasing me around. I told him to do it and I didn't do it myself because I didn't want to "still" sources he found. it would take me less than 5 minutes to include them. all you have to do is to write one sentence and put the source, done. if in a few hours he didn't do it I will do it myself and than withdraw the nomination as I believe that these sources are good enough to prove notability. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 13:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

You’re not getting it. First, I’m not following you around, I’m watching for articles at AFD.

Second, the sources don’t have to be slapped onto an article to satisfy AFD. For AFD we only have to prove a good article is *possible*. If you’re not able to understand that it might not be a good area for you to practice. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 13:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ AlejandroLeloirRey: Only the existence of sources needs to be found; they do not need to be added to the article. Please review WP:AFD, which states, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kbabej: If you don't mind i will add your sources to the article as at the moment there are no reliable good sources and withdraw the nomination. thank you for finding them.-- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ AlejandroLeloirRey: Sounds good to me. Thanks! -- Kbabej ( talk) 21:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kbabej: Done, if you have time give it a look, as you can see my english is not that good at all. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 22:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Gleeanon409: I perfectly know what you are doing, you are pushing and pushing me to make me react so you can make me block on wikipedia, I just hope that someone will see this and help me. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:23, 29 June 2020 (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.