Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Ford (2nd nomination)

Leo Ford

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails on all three bullet points for WP:PORNBIO: No significant awards to his name, no unique contributions, and no notable mentions in mainstream media.

Keep - satisfies WP:BASIC - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Several independent published sources. Connection to the Smiths makes this an interesting article. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this article. Ground Zero | t 17:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The connection to The Smiths appears to be debunked per the talk page so I've deleted it. Also, there's no evidence that the depth of coverage in any of these sources is substantial. None of the sources are online, and the only link is dead, so the extent of the coverage in the sources cannot be verified. Judging the by the titles of the sources, my guess would be that the coverage isn't centered around Leo Ford. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The extent of coverage in the sources can absolutely be verified. Publishers and ISBN numbers are provided. You have just chosen not to leave your computer to verify the sources. There is nothing at all in WP:RS that requires that sources be online to be reliable: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." Wikipedia:Offline sources says (in bold text, no less), "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources." In fact, you should not believe everything you read on the internet. An AfD cannot rely on your "guess" about what the sources say or don't say. Ground Zero | t 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Just like an AfD cannot rely on my "guess" about what the sources say, an AfD cannot rely on your "assumption" what they say either. This is the trouble with printed media when it doesn't have an online link such as to Google books. Many articles when they do quote printed media include the relevant quoted material to account for this quandary, which none of these cites do. Only two of them even mention the page, so these cites wouldn't even be acceptable in a traditional bibliography. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: If you disagree with what WP:RS and Wikipedia:Offline sources say about offline sources, you can propose changes to those policies on the appropriate talk changes and see if you can get consensus for the changes. Until that happens, offline sources remain valid, notwithstanding your preference for online sources. If you think the sources don't say what they are purported to say, Wikipedia:Offline sources has this advice: "Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source. They might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt from that source. Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy. Even if the library doesn't have that particular book or journal article, it might be available through interlibrary loan. Also consider posting an inquiry on the relevant WikiProject, because some interested editors might have a copy of that source. The volunteers at WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help you coordinate your search." Ground Zero | t 09:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. First of all, essays are not Wikipedia policy. WP:OFFLINE is not policy; Wikipedia does not require you to go to a library to challenge an offline source. Verifiability is policy however, and offline sources are not exempt. I never challenged these offline sources as being in bad faith (even though that's irrelevant), I challenged them as being unverifiable because they are. They are poor citations; had these citations been crafted in a more verifiable manner such as including the text of the applicable reference then they wouldn't be an issue. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 13:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Yes, Verifiability is policy and it allows offline sources, see WP:Verifiability#Access_to_sources: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." --Cavarrone (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further comment: I find it bizarre that you removed the reference to a published source, Simon Goddard's book, and commented "Per Talk page cite". The "talk page cite to which you refer is a fan site. ("This site is unofficial and not affiliated with Morrissey. Morrissey-solo was created by me (davidt / David Tseng / david@morrissey-solo.com) and I have been maintaining the site with help from moderators and users that contribute to the site. I have been a fan since 1986 when I was a junior in high school. I'm currently a web developer working at Yahoo! and live in Los Angeles.") A fan site is not a reliable source. Ground Zero | t 01:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. You are correct, I mistook that source as being maintained by official representatives. It's not and therefore should not be considered reliable. I did remove the text again because it is a rumor. I'll elaborate further on the article's talk page, as that is the more appropriate place to discuss this matter. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 14:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

WP:PORNBIO, despite having a nice all-caps redirect, has not been established as a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and quite properly so. To establish PORNBIO as policy would be to enshrine a bias against inclusion of information about gay porn and to establish a bias in favor of heterosexual porn. To see why this is so, one need only look at the current (re-!)nomination. Leo Ford was one of the most prominent gay porn actors of the 1980s. He died in 1991. PORNBIO would have us judge his importance based on whether he won a "significant industry award", such as the AVN award. Yet the GayVN Awards weren't started until 1998, eight years after his death. It's like assessing the importance of silent movie stars based on how many Academy Awards they won. Basing an assessment of importance on such industry awards introduces a bias towards inclusion of more recent actors, as the awards have multiplied and weren't given out (at all, let alone in great numbers) during the period of history we are interested in for this article. And a requirement that gay actors be featured multiple times in "mainstream" media again reinforces bias against appropriate coverage of gay subject matter: the correct criteria would be coverage in gay media (which of course Leo Ford had before his death), and in scholarly studies, or what passes for them, of gay pornography.

Is Leo Ford made "more notable" because he appeared in the first commercial production of a safe sex video? (Life Guard, 1985) (Escoffier, Jeffrey (2009), Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Running Press, p. 212) I don't particularly think so; he's notable because he was popular, but those who adhere to PORNBIO could assert—if they bother to do the research—that this is a unique contribution to a specific genre.

Is he more notable because Andy Warhol writes an unflattering review of a Leo Ford porn video in The Warhol Diaries? (Warhol, Andy (1989), The Andy Warhol Diaries, New York: Hachette, p. "Saturday, July 13, 1985") I don't particularly think so; he's notable because he was popular, but those who adhere to PORNBIO could possibly argue that it does. If they are aware of it, of course. But that's the problem: those doing the judging are unfamiliar with the subject matter, and haven't bothered doing the research they would need to do to make an informed decision about notability.

In a biography of Divine, Ford is described as the (then) "gay America's current wet dream. The six-foot, twenty-year-old blond was on exhibit everywhere: in gay movie theaters, on best-selling videos and in show-all magazine photo spreads. He was a highly marketable commodity as the most popular young stud in gay—and some bisexual—porno movies." (Jay, Bernard (1993), Not Simply Divine: Beneath the Make-Up, Above the Heels and Behind the Scenes with a Cult Superstar, New York: Fireside, p. 203) Does the fact that Ford was a sexual partner of a famous transvestite actor make him more notable. Well, arguably, though it doesn't seem to be taken into account by PORNBIO, but I would still suggest that it's Ford's ubiquity in the 1980s (as attested to by this passage) rather than that that would make Wikipedia a poorer reference if the information on him is censored out of it.

Does having an imdb page, such as this one, mean we should think more highly of an actor's notability? I think probably not, but the consequence of that is that Wikipedia will be a less informative reference source than is imdb.

Is Leo Ford more notable because such newspapers as the Bay Area Reporter and Frontiers covered his off-screen activities, such as fundraising for the KS Foundation? (see, for example, Allen White's profile, "Cover Story: Leo Ford" in the September 9, 1982 Bay Area Reporter). Does the inclusion of his September 1982 event at the Nob Hill Cinema ("porn sensation Leo Ford performed his erotic stage show with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to benefit the reprinting of the Sisters' War on VD pamphlet") indicate his relevance? (Román, David (1998), Acts of Intervention: Performance, Gay Culture, And AIDS, Indiana: Indiana University Press, pp. 14–5) Does the fact that his obituary appeared in The Advocate argue for his importance in gay culture? Yes, I think so; the difficulty being that people shooting "straight" from the hip—rather than having an informed opinion—about notability will be unfamiliar with the basic information needed for such an assessment.

As Ground Zero points out, there's no need for the application of a proposed, non-established guideline here in any case: the subject's notability is established by the "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" which were already cited when this nomination was made. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, I'll dispel the fallacious claim that WP:PORNBIO is not an official guideline. It most certainly is, and has been for quite some time. The policy is currently being discussed in the talk pages, but that does not suspend the guideline. It will not be changed until there is a consensus agreement on a policy change, if there is any at all. Until then, WP:PORNBIO is the appropriate guideline to follow. Your issues with WP:PORNBIO should be discussed on the talk pages along with everyone else. Discussing them here is not constructive since there is already an ongoing community discussion on the policy page and it is also inappropriate since AfD discussions are not platforms to debate policies and guidelines.

That being said, a pornographic actor doesn't need to satisfy all three WP:PORNBIO criteria, they only need to satisfy one. Leo Ford doesn't satisfy any of them. No awards, no unique contributions, no mainstream media features.
Being popular doesn't make you notable. Being popular, being sourced, and being featured in sources makes you notable. I don't see any evidence of that for Leo Ford.
The safe sex video you mentioned doesn't appear to be notable or significant. Life Guard (1985) has an IMDb page that doesn't mention Leo Ford and also has no description available.
Having an IMDb page does not merit having a Wikipedia page. This is a common argument used for AfD discussions for non-notable actors and it is never successful. Wikipedia is not a specialized directory like IMDb and Wikipedia's purpose is not to replicate IMDb. IMDb does just fine at being IMDb.
Leo Ford had a brief relationship with Divine, as is mentioned on his page. This appears to be Ford's only association with any sort of notability. I would suggest that this article be merged with Divine, but it's an incredibly insignificant part of his article. The only salvageable thing I can think of is a Redirect to Divine, but I don't really endorse that myself. I still think this page is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 00:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am generally in favor of tightening up the requirements for notability in this subject generally. But in this particular case, I think basic notability has been fully shown. The problem with those notable at the beginning of a field--before the later-customary ways of recognition become established--is an interesting one, & I don't remember it being raised in any context before. It will generally be taken care of once the historians & sociologists get to the subject, but in some areas that may be a long time coming. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per - wait for it - WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNORE. I propose that the argument raised above about the problems with WP:PORNBIO, especially the point about there having been no awards he could have won during his career, make it common sense to ignore WP:PORNBIO in this case. In my opinion, there's enough sourcing for him to satisfy (weakly) WP:GNG in any case. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Divine. The only legitimate claim to notability for this person comes from his association with the actor. There's nothing to indicate he was notable as a porn performer -- despite what Outerlimits claims, above, industry awards were given out for gay porn for most of Ford's career; for example, the XRCO gave awards for most of the 1980s, and AVN gave awards to gay porn beginning with 1985 releases (the GayVN name was created in 1998, but the awards existed for more than a decade before that. Industry "halls of fame" also recognize performers of the 1980s. The lack of recognition of Ford's work, by the porn industry itself, is a strong signal that he was not notable as a porn performer. Similarly, the extensive history of the genre cited in the article, Jeffrey Escoffier's Bigger Than Life, does not treat Ford as a performer of any significance, but has only a passing mention of him in a quotation from advertising copy for a film under discussion. The other book citations are even less consequential: one author saw him perform at a live sex show in San Francisco; Andy Warhol fell asleep watching one of his porn films. Nothing there resembling the "substantial" coverage required by the GNG. The urban legend that his butt appears on a record cover might be interesting, but it isn't enough to hang an article on, especially since it doesn't seem to have been considered substantial enough to mention in the article on the record itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just want to give this !vote a bump. I think it's the most compelling out of any comment so far and the additional research done was quite useful to back up the reasoning behind it. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 16:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily notable enough.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as far as I can see, a well-referenced article. Cavarrone (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a real bio - it does not even contain the person's real name. This is just a shameless commercial plug to sell more movies. BO; talk 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does using a pseudonym have to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]