Talk:Tory Mason

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2006. The result of the discussion was Kkeep.
The keep result was endorsed at a Deletion Review as well.

[edit] Contested speedy deletion

Tory is a new porn star but he is becoming very popular, he has over 1500 people on his fan list, and within a few months has done work with some of the biggest names and companies in the adult film industry. Porn star Eddie Stone hand picked Tory to work with him, Chi Chi Larue threw a party just for Tory and is having him work for her on several upcoming movis. There are numerous other porn stars listed on Wikipedia who have done significantly less work but their pages are allowed to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joosy (talk • contribs) , 23:03, 26 December 2006

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) and its talk page for guidelines for including an article on a porn star here. As for the "numerous other" articles, many of them shouldn't be here, but haven't been tagged with any sort of deletion template. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states that one of the invalid arguments for retention of an article is What about article x?; which speaks directly to the issue.
I've done some cleanup on the article and provided another external link to another review of him and his work. I feel he's borderline notable, but probably still needs a few more productions to his credit. He certainly looks like a candidate for some awards in the 2007 presentations; that's a wait-and-see, however.
As much work as I do on these sorts of articles and as much as I think they deserve inclusion, I also support having guidelines; I participating in crafting them and want to see them upheld. (They help more than harm, believe me.) I can't see this performer meeting any of those criteria at the present time.
You obviously put some time and effort into the article and further contributions are certainly encouraged; it is best to familiarize yourself with some of the guidlines and policies here first, though.
Another possible road here would be to engage in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) about the guidelines themselves; although I can't think of a way to objectively measure the notability of an emerging figure in the industry, it may be a topic worth discussing.
In the meantime, my advice would be to copy this article offline and keep it in a safe place for when he's met some of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). Good luck.—Chidom talk  00:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm reversing my advice. I think the article does meet notability guidelines, although the more general ones, not the ones specific to pornography performers. I've argued for retention in greater detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tory Mason.—Chidom talk  03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

KEEP!!! There is enough information about Tory Mason to warrent his inclusion. Keep his article - do NOT delete. 63.215.27.31 20:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)cnygayboi, Dean Anddon

You're posting in the wrong spot. You need to post something of this variety

'''Keep''' - There is enough information about Tory Mason to warrant his inclusion. Keep his article - do NOT delete. -~~~~

on this page-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE KEEP!!! I agree that there is enough information about Tory Mason to warrant his inclusion. KEEP his article - DO NOT DELETE! Thanks! Xxx1971 07:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing and prod tag rationale

The presence of this article on Wikipedia is truly unbelievable, and demonstrates just how far editors will go to include an article and defend an article despite the lack of notability of the subject. The first paragraph under Career deals with Mason's amateur experience, not his professional experience -- it's irrelevant. The paragraph lists three pornographic websites at which amateur shots were posted -- irrelevant. Why are the owners of the two "online amateur websites" listed, and not the websites themselves? -- to promote the business of the "owner" websites listed? -- they too are irrelevant. There's a rumor listed in the paragraph: a rumor, in an encyclopedic article? To be deleted.

Paragraph two: why is it relevant to say that his first movie is available at an online streaming website, and why is it relevant to list that website's name, and with whom they're partnered? Is this article about Mason, or about online streaming websites? It's just a feeble attempt at establishing notability. Why mention the name of his publicist/agent? Why is it relevant to talk about who has recruited Mason to work for them; has he done any actual work for any of them? Why talk about plans that Mason had in 2006? And why say that movies came out "before the summer of 2007?" Why not say when they actually came out? Is that another feeble attempt at establishing notability -- that he works amazingly fast? This is all irrelevant filler to try to establish notability, which it does not.

Paragraph three: that barebacking is controversial is nothing new. I especially like the way footnote #6 comes back to this article. REAL pro editing there. The rest of the paragraph does little more than advertise Mason's films. The reference to Jarod's Hooking Up is totally irrelevant.

Paragraph four: "Mason has announced that he will be gaining approximately 20 pounds..." You're kidding with this, right? Possible future event, to be deleted.

Videography: why are retail websites being cited? -- that only promotes their business, nothing else. And why are videos that have not yet been released listed here? Once they're released they can be listed, until then, they are arguably possible future events. To be deleted.

Online appearances: this pre-professional career irrelevancy is already listed in the narrative and will be deleted, together with the retail sites unnecessarily cited.

Altogether, this article says a lot of nothing about a non-notable porn actor, interspersed with unnecessary references to porn sites.

This article may exist as a vanity article or as an article supported by industry promoters of Mason. Perhaps the editors who so strongly defend, contribute to, and inflate it are, sadly, enamored of this porn actor -- none of which is a reason to keep it alive. It should be deleted entirely: the subject is not noteworthy under any of the criteria established to determine notability.72.76.85.207 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The article survived both AfD and Deletion Review. The article was deemed noteworthy via WP:BIO, and although you find the sources irrelevant, the community did not. That you seem confused by some of the stuff listed seems troubling if you are actually trying to help wikipedia out.-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 10:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this article survived the afd and deletion review back in January, and that was a fiasco! After twelve deletes and only five keeps, the decision was made to keep, all because the five keeps took their time to write up essays in support of keep -- now that's real consensus! How pathetic that a cabal of editors are so taken with the subject that they write convincing essays in support of keeping an article which at best is bloated mediocrity -- that is truly troubling.
Where is the subject's notability? -- a couple of porn site articles? It's not noteworthy to be written up in industry publications or related websites -- that's just self-promotion within the industry: "one hand washing the other." Fact is, Tory Mason has done nothing particularly noteworthy; he does not warrant an article.
I hereby issue a challenge to the cabal of editors mentioned, to anyone who objects to the deletion, and to SneakyTodd specifically : allow the prod tag to remain, and allow the deletion process to proceed anew. With the arguments listed above, I believe the article will be deleted upon re-examination. If what the cabal and SneakyTodd believes to be true is indeed true, then the article will stand -- assuming, of course, that the process will be handled honorably (is that asking too much of the cabal?), and a genuine consensus will be respected. Failure to agree to this challenge will be seen as both an admission and a concession that the article will not survive a new deletion review and that the article does not truly warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.71.127.235.51 12:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That a publication has a section where they talk about porn, such as the Bay Area Reporter, San Francisco's Gay and Lesbian publication, does not mean they are intellectually integrated with either this model or any of the companies he has worked for. Proclamations to the contrary amount to little more than conspiracy theories until you have evidence to the contrary. That many people agree that this article is notable does not make them a cabal. That many people would like to hear about porn does not make all written reference to porn self-promotion within the industry. Please heed Wikipedia's rules and only put up the prod tags for non-contentious deletions. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
First, do not be so naive as to believe that there was no consultation between Mason or any companies he's worked for and BAR in preparation for the article. BAR was not fulfilling some civic duty in writing about a little-known porn actor. However, as a source, they are legit. So this one and only one article from a legit source establishes the notability of Mason? It does not. Second, if I were you, I would not write of conspiracy theories, looking at some of the comments you've been making lately in talk pages. Third, "many" people do not agree that this article is notable: only 5 out of 12 thought so in the January AfD fiasco. Those editors who spoke in favor of keep did so through essays of quite unusual length, with one reversing her/himself after a lengthly essay in favor of delete. Through those essays they overturned/usurped the delete process -- as such, they are a cabal. Fourth, so what if "many" people want to hear about porn? -- and how do you know that? Even if they do, that doesn't justify maintaining mediocre articles here as though you have a role to fulfill in satisfying their demand through Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it does not exist to make easy the search for porn. Fifth, why did you remove the prod tag? Why did you decline the challenge listed above? Why not put it up to discussion like you did with the Johnny Hanson deletion proposal? Oh! -- that's right, you lost that one! You are afraid you'll lose this one, too. That is why you removed the prod tag. There are two words to describe your actions here today: artifice, and cowardice. Good day. 72.76.93.198 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I would assume that if a company wants publicity, and the BAR wants to do a weekly article about porn, that it is quite likely that there was some form of consultation, and don't see what's so wrong with that. I would be surprised if something similar did not happen with traditional entertainment. I did not submit this article to AfD because it has already been through AfD. The result was keep, and the argument that you bring up was further brought up in Deletion Review, the result was keep. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And for the record, I'm not into twinks like this guy. I'm am not "so taken with the subject that they write convincing essays in support of keeping [the article]." I really doubt Chidom was either. We're just trying to improve Wikipedia. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not care to know to what you or Chidom are not attracted. You, Chidom and your cabal proliferate mediocrity in Wikipedia with crappy articles like this one. You do not improve Wikipedia, you debase Wikipedia. 72.76.93.198 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Research

What is so unvalid with personal research. I do know Tory, personally. Please tell me what an appropriate source is for one's actual name?

Any published source. The fact that it has not been publicly released means that you cannot add that to Wikipedia. IF you continue, I will get an administrator to block you. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 10:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not a biography. It reads like a blurb for one of his films, or a PR piece. You may know him, but we don't know you. Sources means published sources, reliable published sources. Please do not threaten your fellow Wikipedians. Thanks. -Jmh123 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologize. I take privacy issues very seriously. If somebody prefers to use a pseudonym for privacy, I take great offense to somebody else posting revealing information on Wikipedia, especially since that information will stay in the article history forever. I did not mean to come off as a bully, but the fact is that his real name is not public information, and this editor was violating his privacy, and I do not appreciate him continuing in this manner. I will attempt to soften my tone when dealing with this situation in the future. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Linking to websites that sell films does not constitute sourcing. Please read reliable sources and no original research. If anything, this is more like a piece of advertising than ever. You might want to check the entries of other porn stars and see how they are sourced. Forget that -- I just check a few random entries and they pretty much all lack any sourcing. That doesn't mean it's OK. Reliable sources would be articles in books, newspapers, or magazines, published interviews, and the like. -Jmh123 20:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think whoever added those sources were using it to show that Mason videography. XBiz is a publication that provides status updates as to the state of the online adult industry and is also available offline in a regular published format. The Bay Area Reporter is the Gay and Lesbian publication for the San Francisco area. Are either of these sources considered acceptible? -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
These two are fine. It was easier to go through and delete the unacceptable refs and add cite tags than list each one. I hadn't wanted to hit you with all that, but since you asked, and the entry looks like it could be shaping up now if you can find reliable sources for more of this info. You can retrieve anything you want from the history--you know how to use edit history to retrieve earlier versions, right? Just go to the history tab, click on "diff", and then click on the version you want. If you hit the edit button, you can cut and paste any "lost" info from my edits that you might need.
I know how frustrating it is to know something personally, but not be able to add it because you don't have a reliable source for it. I do have to be honest, though, and say that he doesn't seem all that notable to me, but then neither do most of the others on the list. When I compare great artists--musicians, actors, dancers, painters, sculptors--with careers spanning a lifetime, who have shorter entries at Wikipedia, but don't have fans building them up, it's a little frustrating. -Jmh123 22:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Since I started editing this article I have met the subject in person briefly, just as I have met quite a few other porn guys. My knowledge of the subject is rather limited, and I am stuck searching for information on him the same way you are. I'm not really even a fan of his, but I do think he is notable enough to warrant an article, and thus I've decided to help out. I agree that there are probably quite a few artists more notable than Tory whose articles are sadly lacking. I do the best I can within the subject matter I am most familiar with. I do know how to retrieve information from the history, and I've had to do that with a few articles, I'll see what I can do here within the next couple of days. Just a quick question, a few of the sentences that are tagged state that he appeared on a certain website; if the website still contains his material do I cite the website, or do I just delete the tag? -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, you should link an article about him, or an interview, that says he appeared on those sites. Links to the sites themselves? No. -Jmh123 03:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So these guys are notable because you've met them? You're not "helping out" here, you have an agenda. And don't pretend innocence or ignorance in your question re the websites, your artifice is well-known. 72.76.93.198 01:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you're "stuck searching for information on him" it's because he's not notable! 72.76.93.198 01:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I met him after I started editing his article; I don't think saying, "Hi" while he's stripping is anything particularly notable. There is no agenda other than to improve Wikipedia, hence the question with regard to style. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 02:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oy Gevalt, a bal-chaloimes/schreiber. 72.76.80.133 12:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)