Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Corrigan

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 of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. RadioKirk talk to me 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Corrigan

The long revert war over including this actor's real name aside, I am not convinced that this article asserts the subject's notability. Controversies exist over the actor's apparent admission that he falsified his identification in order to work in porn at age 17 (illegal in the US), and over his insistence that he is entitled to continue using "Brent Corrigan" (which Cobra Video claims as intellectual property), but these "controversies" were exclusive to the gay adult entertainment community and media, and went utterly unreported in mainstream media, per Google. (As an aside, I cannot find any source other than the "press release" supposedly issued by Cobra Video for the subject's "real" name which, frankly, comes across as an effort to discredit the subject or and/or lay claim through the "media" to its "property".) Since I alone cannot determine whether this is a clear-cut case of notability or non-notability, I am bringing this here. RadioKirk talk to me 21:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Legal issues and revert wars aren't a reason to delete; he's in the news and appears to be notable from what I can see. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Care, but keep I've done a lot of work salvaging this article from edit wars and horrible POV writing from both sides. I really have no care in the world about whether gay porn stars are automatically included in Wikipedia. But, considering the number of het porn stars that exist on wikipedia, it makes sense to keep the gay ones too. It may miss "mainstream media" but who cares about mainstream media? The porn media has shown itself repeatedly to be quite reputable, if self-serving (of the industry, not of the subjects it write abouts). SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I should mention his sexuality is irrelevant to me; I questioned this based entirely on notability. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then notability is established. Wikipedia has hundreds of porn star bios, many just stubs. If it was my encyclopedia, I'd probably delete most of them, but it's not. Consensus is that being a porn star means being notable. This porn star has a following and created news. SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 12 May 2006 (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.