Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Rush (porn star)

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 of the debate was keep. Petros471 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Rush (porn star)

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
  • Delete - non notable -- Tawker 05:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- he is one of the most important porn stars in gay porn now. The article is well-written, and properly categorized and linked. Saying that he is "non-notable" is blatantly false. The only motivation for this nomination appears to be prudishness. If this article is deleted, then precedent will be set for all porn star and porn-related articles to be deleted. Zeromacnoo 10:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Molsby
  • Strong keep Zeromacnoo said everything about this topic. Daydream believer2 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Every porn stars have their article even if they are not specifically 'notable'. And if ones need reasons for Rush's notability, there are plenty, including that he might be the very first gay porn star to have a 'Lifetime' exclusivity contract with a studio. Em79 17:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep He is one of the more popuar gay porn stars so he is actuly very notable --unsigned comment by Archangel2244
  • Strong keep We need more like him--unsigned comment by 69.244.28.8
  • Strong keep per Zeromacnoo. Senatedems 19:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Very very very strong keep. He is a very important star. The article itself is well written and should not be deleted. GB

  • Strong keep . mtxoracle 04:00 22 May 2006 (PST) Matthew/Greg is very notable, the mark of AfD is silly. He is very notable, given that WikiP keeps a list of pornstars and has many holes in that list, as a resource for free information and a compendium of said information it stands to reason that this article should not be deleted or altered outside of furhter updates or corrections.... now i hope i did this right.
  • Strong keep . UBopp 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Unless Wikipedia is instituting across-the-board censorship policies, there can be no argument for deleting this article without advocating a major reduction of freedom of speech as it is permitted in the rules of Wikipedia. That wouldn't be very conservative, now, would it?
      • Comment, "...freedom of speech as it is permitted in the rules of Wikipedia"? Sorry, there is no inherent "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia, or any other website for that matter. Deleting this article would not violate "freedom of speech" if you are referring to your constitutional rights (presuming you are American), because the 1st Amendment only guarantee's that the government will not abridge your right to "free speech". It says nothing about the media, or society at large, moderating you, I, or anyone else. Just ask the Dixie Chicks... Besides, Jimbo's executive actions on some articles Brian Peppers should be proof enough that there is no absolute "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia; all articles are subject to removal by executive action if Jimbo et. al. deem it so. But, enough of a civics lesson for today... If you are speaking about systemic bias that may occur by deleting this entry, you may have a point. In that case though it would be beneficial for anyone with the opinion of "Keep" to post some verifiable sources proving that this individual meets WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO. I have not idea if he meets those criteria, hence no opinion on it. Opinions for deletion or rentention should be based on those criteria though.--Isotope23 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This nomination was incomplete; listing now. - Liberatore(T) 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's not true that "Every porn stars have their article even if they are not specifically 'notable'" - lots are deleted right here at AFD. WP:PORN BIO is a proposal for formalizing what makes a porn star notable. Can one or more of the people voting Keep explain exactly what makes Rush "one of the more popuar gay porn stars"? Is there some kind of ranking of relative popularity we can reference? AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Per Zeromacnoo, et al. Subject is notable within his niche. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Of no value. CalJW 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The criteria in WP:PORN BIO are clearly not met, or no mention of their being met is made. I also wonder precisely why there are so very many "strong keep" votes, which are otherwise rather rare, by so many users who are either anonymous or lacking userpages? Having investigated as much during the writing of this comment, I have found that a few of them are extremely new, with very few edits. I have nothing against new users, mind you, but could some be sock puppets? Ubopp, for instance, has made all of one edit - to this page. Mtxoracle has made only one edit to article space and two to this page. Falcon 23:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The WP:PORN BIO criterion the keep "votes" are being cast under would apparently be #8, notable performer in niche, where "gay porn" is the niche. Again, I'm not "voting" one way or the other, but I would really appreciate if someone who does know about the niche state what specifically makes him notable in the niche. Note that this specific issue (that 100 films was probably too high for gay erotic actors) was the very first comment on WP:PORN BIO. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: If the article can be cleaned up and actual information (other than physical attributes, etc.) can be uploaded, then Matthew Rush is a good candidate for keeping around. Mr. Rush's career, according to the aforementioned proposed outline for adult film stars that Falcon alluded to, is a valid Wikipedia entry. He won an AVN (Gayvn Award to be specific) award in 2002 for Best Newcomer, and as it has been mentioned before, he has what seems to be an exclusive "lifetime" contract with the higest-grossing gay film company in the country. If any of the editors who have voted "strong keep" can update this information, it might be worth it in the long run.Overdrive10 04:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think that WP:PORN BIO has appropriate criteria for gay pron stars. I would try to add some but I'm not sure exactly what they should be myself. Someone with broader experience than I should look into adding something to the proposal. Eluchil404 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Matthew Rush is definitely among the more notable porn stars in the industry, due to his appearance in high-profile Falcon films and in the touring play. I was pretty surprised to see that a well written article about him is being considered for deleltion. --DavidK93 04:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep article is well written and factual. I see no grounds for a valid AFD.  ALKIVAR™ 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Winning the Gayvn Award in 2002 for Best Newcomer and signing a lifetime contract (whatever that entails) with the highest grossing gay film company in the United States is a fair expression of notability in my book. Sorry tawker.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:06, 14 June 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.