Talk:Armond Rizzo

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the subject has received several notable awards within the gay porn industry, has been discussed and interviewed in multiple notable LGBTQIA-focused publications, including Out and DNA, who identify Rizzo as a significant figure in the modern gay porn industry, as well as Instinct and PinkNews. He is one of the most searched-for gay porn performers in the world on Pornhub (and presumably, on other sites). While his notability may cross over to mainstream, non LGBT-focused publications such as The New York Times, that does not nullify his notability within the gay porn industry. --Benmite (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello I think you may need to read WP:AUTO, WP:PROMO WP:COI & WP:NPOV. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, I was not actually responding to the claim that this article is promotional since you never mentioned that in the deletion discussion or the talk page discussion, I was merely contesting the speedy deletion on the basis that its subject was non-notable, which is the claim you did actually make. Also, I am not a new user who has only created this one article, I've been regularly editing on here for over 4 years and I am extended-confirmed. It would be one thing if this article was my first but I've created articles on plenty of subjects, this just happens to be one of them, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that this one was meant to be promotional. Nowhere in the deletion discussion or on the talk page was it expressed by you that this article was especially promotional, nor was it expressed that it reads like an advertisement (which would be a separate issue that could be resolved within the text without deleting the article itself) so this speedy deletion nomination is coming out of left field. Also, ping me when you reply please. Benmite (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Benmite Hello once more, asides the non notability of the subject, the article is G11 worthy per WP:PROMO. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, you still haven't explained why that is the case. That was also never mentioned in the main deletion discussion. You said the reason it was worthy of deletion was because the subject was not notable. Benmite (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, like I stated elsewhere, please take a minute to read my reply before replying, don’t just reply for the sake of it. i just clearly stated above thatc asides the non notability of the article’s subject it is also a promotional article worthy of a G11. At this juncture, I think it is best to leave it to the deleting admin. Unfortunately, i may not be able to answer any of your queries as I am quite busy with other things at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, I am saying that you did not explain why it is promotional. You said that it was promotional and just left it at that. You have yet to offer any explanation as to why that is the case, how you came to that conclusion, what about it is promotional, or anything of the sort. If your schedule does not permit you the time to explain your reasoning for speedy deletion, then why nominate the page for speedy deletion in the first place? It seems counterintuitive. Benmite (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Benmite, Hello, if you had read WP:NPOV & WP:PROMO like I politely asked you to, you wouldn’t have to ask me obvious questions such as you have done above. Celestina007 (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, I am asking you which specific criteria the article meets that renders it promotional or non-neutral and how it meets those criteria. I read both of those and from what I can tell, neither of them apply. You seem to be implying that I have some connection with Mr. Rizzo, and I don't know how to prove that I don't but if I have to, I will. Benmite (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, since you refuse to tell me what about this article is promotional, I will go through WP:PROMO to explain how it is not:

• Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment: Outside of the "Public image" section, which states that Rizzo is renowned for his work as a bottom (which is sourced), nothing in the article is written subjectively.
• Opinion pieces: Again, article is written objectively, and does not take sides on Rizzo outside of saying that publications have praised his work as a bottom (which can be discussed without deleting the entire article, if that is the issue.)
• Scandal mongering: There is a mention of Rizzo revealing that he was paid significantly less than his top costars, but not only is this sourced, but mentions of it appeared in PinkNews, which is a confirmed RS.
• Self-promotion: I am not Armond Rizzo, nor do I know Armond Rizzo, in spite of your claims to the contrary. Again, not sure how I can prove this, but I will if need be.
• Advertising, marketing, or public relations: Again, the article is not written with puffery outside of the public image section, and even then, that section states that other publications and porn critics have regarded Rizzo for his bottoming, not that it is objectively true that he is good at bottoming or that he is "the best bottom".

Hopefully that answers that. Benmite (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, also, if the issue is that his real name is unsourced, I found it through a forum, which led me to finding this YouTube video featuring him which was posted to an account named Rene Salgado. This is admittedly a case of WP:PRIMARY (sorry about that) and I can remove it, but the rest of the article is fully sourced information. Benmite (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007: I'm just curious, where is the "apparent" WP:COI issue in all this? I see you noted COI above, as well as added the COI template to the article, so I was hoping you could elaborate. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)