Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Rocco Magnotta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the subject of this article fails WP:PORNBIO. No major awards are noted on the article page, nor unique contributions to the genre, and Youtube aside, has no numerous mentions in mainstream media.
If you disagree with this decision, please seek Deletion Review. Due to suspicions of undue influence, the article will be salted temporarily: A DRV admin is free to unprotect if consensus merits. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luka Rocco Magnotta

  • NOTE to closing administrator - many comments were removed due to a large number of single-purpose accounts; a concern was expressed that some of these may have had good policy-based arguments, see the talk page. —Random832 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
This nomination request has been semi-protected due to the meatpuppet flood. If you can not edit this page, please leave your comment on the talk page and the closing administrator will review it. Nakon 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Luka Rocco Magnotta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable pornographic actor/model trying to use Wikipedia to gather more attention. Article has previously been deleted. MasterA113 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete The article claims Magnotta's been in the industry since 2003. However, he doesn't seem to be that famous. Google only brought me 380 hits, and nothing worth mentioning. ― LADY GALAXY 03:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

-"comment" Try googling "Luka Magnotta" he doesnt use his middle name. Links to all articles are on his page, please try to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Definitley keep, useful article to many people... luka is searched for alot, just look at the history. Alot of people have found this article useful for months and some unfortuate peopl are ruining it by wanting it deleted. user:buttercupbaby77
  • Weak Delete After taking a look, given the guy does have an IMDB article I can't see why he isn't notable enough to keep. However! Allowing it would open the doors to flood Wikipedia with pornstar personal pages, and there are -- well, alot of them. Notable-ish. Also, Lady Galaxy, I don't think there is such a rule, tbh. Nor could I really say one way or the other if there should be one. Rubydanger (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Dude, everyone knows it's you making your own case for keeping the article, Luka. Non-notable even if he *is* on IMDB. Heck, I'm on IMDB - do I get my own Wiki because of it?Natasha Amazing (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It does. Lady Galaxy 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete AnonEMouse's custom pr0no search produces two hits, neither related to this guy. Not notable. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio with hints of advertising. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I found these websites, of Luka's aka Jimmy[1] [2][http://executivemaleescorts.com/index.php?

  • KEEP Why are all the POSATIVE somments deleted? Not fair, there ARE numerous reliable sources for Luka Magnotta in google if you google " Luka Magnotta" Article is very well written and states reliable sources. Thank you.user:ambrrose331
  • Keep It is not a vanity page, it is full of reliable content which alot of people obviously search for. I find it useful, there seems to be alot of 'delete happy' people here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banditolover (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN, vanity page, agree on salting this earth. Dureo (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP Article meets standards, sites reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderfulworldfree (talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, nothing at imdb, there are porn actors with hundreds of roles. This guy has five that don't even get documented at imdb? Corvus cornixtalk 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Man, doing some research on this guy, this seems like another Rikki Lee Travolta self-promoter. The youtube videos are so bogus, they never show his face and the bodies together, they show people with and without tattoos, there's one pic where his face is clearly photoshopped over the body. His links are to PR sites where anybody can post anything, and one where it's actually him posting the claims. Nothing makes this person notable. Corvus cornixtalk 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP I created this page, I work in the entertainment industry. Numerous people in my building herd and saw this guy on the news, read his articles in FAB magazine, Toronto SUN and so on. Simply because you believe he is "pathetic" and you dont like him does not make a valid point to just get rid of this page. which ALOT of people use and find useful. THats what Wikipedia is for isnt it? For information, and I feel strongly to keep this page.
    • Comment There is also a wide fan following on the internet and he has since become a cult icon on there aswell. So if he is a model, actor, internet personality and there are numerous articles on him...aswell as PLENTY people who visit this wikipedia page daily, some for good reasons to get info and some who use it negatively...please I ask that you leave this page up.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitalarson1 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

      • Excuse me, who said he was pathetic, other than you? The number criterion for having an article here is verifiability, and in order to prove that the person is notable is to provide reliable sources for his notbility. None has been provided. Corvus cornixtalk 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep The interview with the Toronto Sun and the other sources currently in the article do appear to meet WP:BIO (as much as I'd like to argue for deletion simply out of annoyed reaction to the meatpuppets above). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC) switching to abstain right now looks like only one reliable source and an arguably reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Which source other than the Toronto Sun article is a reliable source? Corvus cornixtalk 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Obviously Fab magazine is reliable, Toronto Sun, Internet Movie Database, Official Homepage, Associated Content Page, Official Youtube Channel with Millions of Views.

I am making the point that these articles ARE reliable, he is notable, the articles and links to his films have been provide. So absolutely I am telling everyon I have just edited it to tone it down, clean it up and I did. If anyone has any suggestions please le t me know, we can work together to end our disputes and after we do I would ask you for your guys support to help me edit a little if you feel it nessisary. Lets work together and be professional. I strongly want to keep this article after it has been edited a little, lets compromise. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

      • I think Fab magazine might be ok, although looking at it in more detail, I'm not as convinced. Switching to abstain. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Ok, so He has Toronto Sun articles, associtaed content article, articles in fab magazine, links to his videos and thousands of hits in google..and millions of hits in youtube? Seriously, this is getting pathetic and childish. Keep the bloddy article and stop arguing and vandalising it. What the hell is the big deal. Get a life people. So annoying. He HAS reliable sources and is notable. Thats what it says in Wikipedia standards and guidlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    You have already requested keep above. Nakon 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Luka is notable to alot of people, as it states in his IMDB and in reliable news articles. There are people who have ONE reliable news article on here. Luka has numerous different sources of notability. Including his adult films and fab magazine. Aswell as Youtube(i know youtube is not that important, but there is substancal amounts of content and interviews on there of his televsion appearances) Plus the wikipedia entry is very useful to many who OBVIOUSLY search for him, just look at the history guys. So my point= reliable articles and he is notable...two main points. Please keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep.I tihnk some people on here sould go edit an article with one line...go edit an article with someone who has No hits on google, INSTEAD they are discussing Luka Magnotta and saying he has no reliable sources, ? That makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. There are at least four reliabe articles written about him, along with dozens of other articles. Plus his IMDB and anyone with millions of hits on youtube is supposed to be unknown? HMMM since when? He is obviously notable and known, some people on here just dont do their research and are not professional OR openminded. Read FAB magazine and the Toronto Star and after that go to his official website and youtibe and imdb and then if your not offended look at all his adult films which are sited. Please lets start being adults here and not competative children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitalarson1 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What are you people talking about, SERIOUSLY, Luka's IMDB resume lists his films. WHY are you stating that his resume is blank? Start being professional and HONEST. Noone likes liars or busybodys. Look at Luka's resume. IT IS FULL of his FILMS and modelling. His Wiki entry is full of his films , modelling and nes articles ? What is your peoples problems? GET A LIFE. Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Are we both looking at the same page? http://imdb.com/name/nm2728281/ is blank. His resume, which is provided by him personally, is not a reliable source. Neither is imdb, really, but it generally does show things that a person is notable for. Corvus cornixtalk 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
They are speaking of this:[3] which stats on the bottom of the page "IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified." Definitely NOT a reliable source. Wildthing61476 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


  • comment Mame/Sir the article is [4] Resume cleasly states his employment in adult films, modelling and Internt.

Can we please just agree that there are reliable sources such as Toronto Sun, Fab magazine, and IMDB. However there ARE numberous other articles from news sited talking about his cosmrtic surgery and involvment in Scientology. Im getting really tired of arguing and just want this to be over. I really am sincerely in belief that the article should stay up. Also Internet celebritys who have hundreds of thousands fans and Millions of subscribers obviously research him on a daily basis, just chsck the history. One of the comments on his official youtube page reads " Hey, Luka..I think your a fairy and I nominated your Wikipedia page cause your a fairy and I hat fairys" That is rediculous. Also please go to this link [5] It is a television interview stating he is a male escort? Why is that not included? Bottom line. He is obviously notable, there are alot of articles, I do admit though some are not reliable..however alot are you have to admit. FAB magazine and Toronto sun's media. Alot of people find this article useful, I personally am willing to change and edit it myself, does anyone have any ideas or can help me so that we can keep it. I am trying to be fair and negotiate. I do think the page should be saved BUT it would need to be protected from vandalisim. Please let me know if you are willing to help me. Thank you kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No we can't agree that imdb is a reliable source. It clearly states it not. Nor are blogs or fan sites. Please read WP:NOTE on what establishes notability and ensure that you can demonstrate it via that. Youtube histories, myspace friend counts, etc mean nothing.--Crossmr (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And fab mag is also not a reliable source. These kinds of mags make up information about their models. He's even listed there under two different names. Corvus cornixtalk 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"I made some changes as requested I edited "persoanl life" Made it more nutral and I edited Video Blogs. I took out opinions and just lef facts. I believe the article has now been improved, please let me know if you see anything else that might need my fixing. Thanks guys. I really want to edit it to the best I can to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"COMMENT" I believe Fab magazine to be a reliable source, what proof do you have that the magazine is not a reliable source? Yes one of his articles states he is Luka and the other he goes by his porn name "Jimmy" SAME as in his films. Almost every porn actor does. YOu have no proof FAB magazine is unreliable. Canada and its gay community rely in it and yes it is reliable. Lets stick to the facts and NOT your opinion please. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment What proof do you have that FAB Magazine IS reliable? We have stuck to the facts in this case, and the fact remains, there aren't enough reliable sources (and an interview in the Toronto Sun is NOT enough!) to show why he is notable. You keep referring to his "resume" on IMDB, which again we have shown is completely not reliable as IMDB themselves have stated, and again I quote, "IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified." So according to IMDB, this resume, is not accurate, complete or verified. All of this points back to that there are not enough sources to verify why he is notable. A few more things, one please remember to be and stay civil in your comments. Secondly, make sure you sign all of your posts with ~~~~ as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have already expressed an opinion above, based on the usual way of verifying notability of porn stars. That, of course, is not infallible because a Google search, however well-targeted, does not cover media without an online presence. It is the same with citing books or newspapers in a library, some of which are long out of print, are not online, but nevertheless are valid sources both for establishing notability and providing detail. The "keep" faction here, although well-intentioned, seem to be having some trouble realising what is necessary to establish notability, which is the crux of this debate. Enthusiasm is one thing, objective support for that enthusiasm is another. It may well be that the subject of this article is entirely worthy of support, but with the best will in the world to him, this is an encyclopedia with standards, and it seems to me that it is up to those arguing to keep this article to provide reason to do so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment I would like to say that I believe Luka Magnotta is notable because he has starred and acted in several adult films WHICH ARE RELIABLY SITED, Luka was also a model in FAB magazine and FAB boy TWICE, Magazine links in article along with film links. Also Luka is widly known on Youtube with over 2million viewers. Luka has been featured in news paper articles, internet articles which are sited...and please view this television interivew of Luka, [6] for which he is interviewd about his career. HONESTLY NAKED NEWS MUST BE RELIABLE? How can people keep saying these arent reliable? He was inrerviewed countless times? http://youtube.com/watch?v=sFF0aKmDp18. That is my argument that he is a notable ADULT performer in Films and Magazines.


  • Strongly Keep after viewing all the reliable adult film sites which feature Luka, I compared them to other adult male pornstars and Luka has more listed films then most other gay pornstars.

Plus I viewed Luka's television interview[7] on Naked News, then I googled Naked news and they are reliable, then I viewed his interviews with associated Content and Toronto Sun. Luka is widly known and obviously notable. I strongly agree to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginefreedom (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for keeping something. WP:NOTE has a specific entry for porn stars and there is no evidence he meets that criteria. If there are other actors who have even less notability than him here, they need to be put up for deletion as well. The associated content website is self-published content. Even if it were considered reliable, its not independent of the subject as he's allegedly written it himself. This can't establish notability. Hence why its written in the first person.--Crossmr (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


]

Youtube is not a reliable source, and in fact, linking to it is deprecated as its images tend to be copyright violations. Corvus cornixtalk 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Absolutely keep, well known googled searched 'Luka Magnotta' pleanty of reliable articles and television interviews, as well as dozens of porn videos and magazines. Article written well and in a fair tone with links to reliable news sources, IMDB, Official website, adult film links and magazine links. Definitly notable.Santamonicablvd3(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC) — Santamonicablvd3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    IMDB is not a reliable source and can't establish notability. If there are plenty of reliable articles provide them.--Crossmr (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep Well known by multiple different sources, viewed his television interviews, watched his adult films and magazines. VERY well known on the internet. Supporting articles check out, IMDM checks out, read news articles. Honestly its getting real sad that some people on here are acting like children "tit for tat" the guys obviously well known..he's oon television interviewed for his career, millions view his porn, he is in magazines. Bottom line is the guy has links to ALL his films, and some of the people on here are being unrealistic. He is notable and the links proove it, They keep saying "provide links" ALL THE LINKS TO HIS VIDEOS ARE PROVIDED. Links to television interviews are also provided, countless articles and websites. He is alot more known then alot of the other male porn stars I researched on here. Keep article and lets all grow up.22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)MartinLKing9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinLKing9 (talk • contribs) — MartinLKing9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete, an IMDB listing does not assert notability. No independent sources that do assert notability, either. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 03:09, 27 January 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.