Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Ryan (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 keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashton Ryan

Ashton Ryan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

[OTRS Ticket#2008021010010308] - the user requests that this article be deleted. In my mind, the notability is questionable at best. I think this one fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO - the body of work is limited. - Philippe | Talk 17:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not sure about someone requesting their article be deleted per a OTRS request, but Mr. Ryan does meet WP:PORNBIO with winning a Gay AVN award. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep requested office actions do not influence AfD discussions, and vice-versa. This article meets notability requirements provided by the guideline WP:PORNBIO, as the actor has received a Gay AVN award, and has been featured in several magazines. The body of work is by no means limited. A quick look at his imdb profile will demonstrate he has significant experience as actor, as well as some as writer, cinematographer, and director. He appears as himself in a full-length movie, as well. The WP:BLP concerns have been addressed by removal of the information relative to the January 2007 Jason Sechrest interview and the related accusations of Ashton being HIV-positive and supposedly having knowingly infected other gay porn actors. This is an editing concern, and not a cause for deletion of the article. This article is by no means a WP:COATRACK, as it has stand-alone notabilty and ample encyclopedic content. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• weak keep We have deleted people based on requested deletions before especially for privacy concerns and this may be an example where that might make sense. I'm conflicted in this case becuase his notability is borderline but I'm not generally in favor of deletion of willing public figures. Since Ashton Ryan is an actor he is about as much as a willing public figure as one can get. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Changing to full keep per Jerry's comment below. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, well said. And he is not just an actor, but also a self-promoted public figure on several websites, including two of his namesake. He has no claim of being unduly outed or whatever. He is just understandably upset about some contentious material that appeared in his article here, and that can be handled by oversight without deleting the article. JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: per Jerry. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per all the keep rationale, but especially Jerry, whose arguments are compelling. As Wildthing61476 said, he won a GayAVN. Subjects should not dictate coverage, as long as it's sourced and neutral and doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. WP:BLP should no longer be an issue with the deletion per Jerry. Obviously notable per WP:PORNBIO. And JoshuaZ has a good point about self promotion trumping BLP. And for the billionth time, AfD is not cleanup. — Besides, Satyr !voted to keep.... So there! (lol) — Becksguy (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly notable with a GayVN award. Questionable content (and there is alot of that on the net about Ashton) must be removed per WP:BLP, but that is a quesiton of content, and does not justify the deletion of the article. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (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.