| Revision as of 16:57, 24 September 2007 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →Nathan Hamilton: reliable sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:58, 24 September 2007 edit undoDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →Nathan Hamilton: IP "voting:Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :::When gossip rises to the level that ] report it, and the subject is a public figure, then Misplaced Pages's ] policy requires that we present both sides - according to the relative strength of both sides - rather than suppress it. Tom Cruise's counsel may contact the Wikimedia Foundation with an OTRS request if they have concerns about this crossing the line, and sysops such as myself can semiprotect or full protect the article as necessary. If the claims are indeed baseless then Mr. Cruise and his handlers have a logical interest in cooperating toward a well-referenced and unbiased article: better to clear the air once and for all. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | :::When gossip rises to the level that ] report it, and the subject is a public figure, then Misplaced Pages's ] policy requires that we present both sides - according to the relative strength of both sides - rather than suppress it. Tom Cruise's counsel may contact the Wikimedia Foundation with an OTRS request if they have concerns about this crossing the line, and sysops such as myself can semiprotect or full protect the article as necessary. If the claims are indeed baseless then Mr. Cruise and his handlers have a logical interest in cooperating toward a well-referenced and unbiased article: better to clear the air once and for all. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *This article should have been DELETED a long time ago -- Just delete it! It never should have been written! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | *This article should have been DELETED a long time ago -- Just delete it! It never should have been written! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :IP addresses don't get to !vote at AFD. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''I have nominated this for deletion before and within hours some one has taken away the deletion tag and shut down any discussion! The reasons to delete this are quite valid. The reason to keep is not -- simple as that! New references and external links and sections to the article I have tried to add have been removed with no explaination as well! It is pointless to keep this sad and unimprovable article. ] 12:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''I have nominated this for deletion before and within hours some one has taken away the deletion tag and shut down any discussion! The reasons to delete this are quite valid. The reason to keep is not -- simple as that! New references and external links and sections to the article I have tried to add have been removed with no explaination as well! It is pointless to keep this sad and unimprovable article. ] 12:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Previous noms were via prod, not AfD. I have looked at every version of this entry, and every offered link and reference. Here is Robin Redford's original version: . She or he was willing to edit war and be blocked to keep it. Here, with some help from a French IP, is the "cited" version (most references being to the earlier case in which Cruise sued another porn star for making such a claim and one interview with cockring.com that does not mention sex with anyone). Here's a more elaborate version with the help of another French IP, with in-line citations "that look like references but they're not" (edit comment by ]). Check for yourselves whether there is any substantiation anywhere or any reliability or notability in any of it. -] 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ::Previous noms were via prod, not AfD. I have looked at every version of this entry, and every offered link and reference. Here is Robin Redford's original version: . She or he was willing to edit war and be blocked to keep it. Here, with some help from a French IP, is the "cited" version (most references being to the earlier case in which Cruise sued another porn star for making such a claim and one interview with cockring.com that does not mention sex with anyone). Here's a more elaborate version with the help of another French IP, with in-line citations "that look like references but they're not" (edit comment by ]). Check for yourselves whether there is any substantiation anywhere or any reliability or notability in any of it. -] 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:58, 24 September 2007
Nathan Hamilton
- Nathan Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Individual is not notable. He does not meet the guidelines for notability for a porn actor: WP:PORNBIO The only source for the article is a single interview in an obscure publication. The article has become the repository for rumor and BLP violations. Editors of the entry believe it should be deleted, per Talk:Nathan Hamilton. -Jmh123 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Whatever else might be going on, this entry doesn't meet the requirements of Misplaced Pages:Notability (pornographic actors). Accounting4Taste 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. He doesn't, uh, measure up to the porn bio standards. Yes, such WP standards do exist... Qworty 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Article has been indeed the repository for rumor and BLP violations and the only source is very obscure and the only back-up source is unreliable for many reasons one being it quotes Paul Barresi's chapter which would be marketed as fiction should it ever get published. This article should have been deleted a long time ago! This has all been hearsay and based on comments that readers have read on websites etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.65 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As per above, doesn't meet WP:Notability. Wstaffor 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteI went through and looked at all the various different versions in the Edit history. There were a lot of rumors that if confirmed would make a great article but as it is only rumors and cannot be confirmed with reliable sources it should be deleted! LaniMakani 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- This account's first edit is to this page. Probable sockpuppetry. Durova 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It!!!- a couple of us have been trying to point out that this article was based on gossip, rumor etc for a long time. If you read the one and only reference, you will see that it is all a "boy's fantasy!" Also I contacted Gay News Netherlands office and that write does not even work for them! Roz Lipschitz 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge/redirect to Tom Cruise per the following. I won't attempt to gauge the reliability of every one of those sources (nor their veracity), but MSNBC is substantial. This individual appears to be the end point of the rumors that Tom Cruise may have had a gay lover. Misplaced Pages does not engage in original research, but when reports of that sort get repeated in the mainstream press they become notable enough for Misplaced Pages, which is not censored, to present both sides with proper citations. Additionally, some IP addresses and accounts have been removing mention of Nathan Hamilton from a variety of articles. I've been conducting an investigation for several days based upon a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard and during this time two different Wikipedians who were looking into the matter got targeted by impersonation/spoofing attacks. I was one of those two individuals. The other editor may or may not choose to step forward. Durova 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I have to disagree that MSNBC.com is a substantial source in this case. Jeannette Walls of MSNBC.com writes a gossip column, and the word GOSSIP is clearly printed on the banner. I am aware of a number of instances when gossip she prints has turned out to be untrue, and one in which she deliberately distorted information to imply a false conclusion. More to the point, Hamilton is not named or alluded to in any way in the MSNBC.com column. The hollywoodinterrupted.com gossip is not reliable, and in this case, only a nickname is used. There is nothing to link Barresi's "Big Red" to Hamilton. It would be a violation of BLP to give any airing to a story which may or may not have been told by this individual in a bragging fashion to a questionable source from whom a gossip column (hollywoodinterrupted.com) claims to have obtained a chapter in an unpublished book. The Hamilton article has also at times contained an unsubstantiated rumor that he is dead, reinserted even after it was removed by OTRS (Ticket# 2007072910002267). I completely disagree that this should be included in the Cruise article, as there is no reliable source to validate any gossip referred to here, only a second party report of an individual's claim to a sexual encounter with Cruise, as well as encounters with other famous men. -Jmh123 07:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Added: yes, someone impersonated/spoofed me on the Michael Lucas page, and Durova helped me with that situation, and investigating that event brought this article to my attention. Yes, a number of possible socks wanted this article in Misplaced Pages and now they want it out. None of this changes the fact that there is no reliable source here. -Jmh123 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Tom Cruise is a protected page! Any one who has tried to publish the gossip about Hamilton or any other individual with claims of Cruise's homosexuality has received serious legal threats from Bert Field's (Cruise's legal team). Merging into Tom Cruise article will just draw negative attention. There are already references in that article to the accusations that Cruise might be gay. Many articles on Hamilton have recently been removed from the net all together. If these articles were available and were found to be reliable sources then there might be a worthwhile article here but if you look at all the former edits of this article you will find a lot of info based on gossip columns etc. I am not sure how a comment at OTRS can possibly be a valid source for information on how anyone could prove or disprove whether some one is dead or alive (especially when all they have is a stage name, etc.), But again all the sources on Hamilton are from Gossip sources. Thiis article should have been deleted months ago! It would be interesting to see the results of any investigation done by Durova or others but I highly doubt if they have come up with anything but gossip! Also note that all mention of this was removed a long time ago from the Paul Barresi site and no one is willing to clean up that mess of an article which was nominated for deletion some time ago and was decided to Keep/Clean-up! I point out that the claims of Cruise, Banderas, Priestly, Travis, Brooks, etc were made by Barresi in his own report! No one not even the Gay News Netherlands article quotes Hamilton as saying any of this! Again looking at previous edits of the Hamilton article, WP editors have not even allowed a videography or list of external links! 209.244.42.65 11:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- When gossip rises to the level that reliable sources report it, and the subject is a public figure, then Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy requires that we present both sides - according to the relative strength of both sides - rather than suppress it. Tom Cruise's counsel may contact the Wikimedia Foundation with an OTRS request if they have concerns about this crossing the line, and sysops such as myself can semiprotect or full protect the article as necessary. If the claims are indeed baseless then Mr. Cruise and his handlers have a logical interest in cooperating toward a well-referenced and unbiased article: better to clear the air once and for all. Durova 16:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I have to disagree that MSNBC.com is a substantial source in this case. Jeannette Walls of MSNBC.com writes a gossip column, and the word GOSSIP is clearly printed on the banner. I am aware of a number of instances when gossip she prints has turned out to be untrue, and one in which she deliberately distorted information to imply a false conclusion. More to the point, Hamilton is not named or alluded to in any way in the MSNBC.com column. The hollywoodinterrupted.com gossip is not reliable, and in this case, only a nickname is used. There is nothing to link Barresi's "Big Red" to Hamilton. It would be a violation of BLP to give any airing to a story which may or may not have been told by this individual in a bragging fashion to a questionable source from whom a gossip column (hollywoodinterrupted.com) claims to have obtained a chapter in an unpublished book. The Hamilton article has also at times contained an unsubstantiated rumor that he is dead, reinserted even after it was removed by OTRS (Ticket# 2007072910002267). I completely disagree that this should be included in the Cruise article, as there is no reliable source to validate any gossip referred to here, only a second party report of an individual's claim to a sexual encounter with Cruise, as well as encounters with other famous men. -Jmh123 07:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- This article should have been DELETED a long time ago -- Just delete it! It never should have been written! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.105.146 (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- IP addresses don't get to !vote at AFD. Durova 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteI have nominated this for deletion before and within hours some one has taken away the deletion tag and shut down any discussion! The reasons to delete this are quite valid. The reason to keep is not -- simple as that! New references and external links and sections to the article I have tried to add have been removed with no explaination as well! It is pointless to keep this sad and unimprovable article. Robin Redford 12:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous noms were via prod, not AfD. I have looked at every version of this entry, and every offered link and reference. Here is Robin Redford's original version: . She or he was willing to edit war and be blocked to keep it. Here, with some help from a French IP, is the "cited" version (most references being to the earlier case in which Cruise sued another porn star for making such a claim and one interview with cockring.com that does not mention sex with anyone). Here's a more elaborate version with the help of another French IP, with in-line citations "that look like references but they're not" (edit comment by User:DESiegel). Check for yourselves whether there is any substantiation anywhere or any reliability or notability in any of it. -Jmh123 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, whatever the case, it is nominated for deletion now and I say please DELETE IT! Robin Redford 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Patience. Please review AfD procedure here WP:AFD. This nomination will run for at least five days, and then an admin will decide based on the arguments presented and a sense of the consensus of the community. Further sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK) will harm, not help. -Jmh123 16:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, whatever the case, it is nominated for deletion now and I say please DELETE IT! Robin Redford 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous noms were via prod, not AfD. I have looked at every version of this entry, and every offered link and reference. Here is Robin Redford's original version: . She or he was willing to edit war and be blocked to keep it. Here, with some help from a French IP, is the "cited" version (most references being to the earlier case in which Cruise sued another porn star for making such a claim and one interview with cockring.com that does not mention sex with anyone). Here's a more elaborate version with the help of another French IP, with in-line citations "that look like references but they're not" (edit comment by User:DESiegel). Check for yourselves whether there is any substantiation anywhere or any reliability or notability in any of it. -Jmh123 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)