This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.244.42.65 (talk) at 11:56, 24 September 2007 (→Nathan Hamilton). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:56, 24 September 2007 by 209.244.42.65 (talk) (→Nathan Hamilton)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Nathan Hamilton
- Nathan Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Individual is not notable. 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 substantial. 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--other than Misplaced Pages, if this is added. 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. Given that the Hamilton article has also at times contained an unsubstantiated rumor that he is dead, reinserted even after it was removed by OTRS, and given other overblown claims in various edits during the months this entry has been present, it is my feeling that this is an aborted attempt at attention-seeking of the sort that a porn star might take to enhance his career. I completely disagree that this should be included in the Cruise article, as there is no reliable source to validate anything, only a second party report of an individual's claim to a sexual encounter with Cruise, as well as encounters with Antonio Bandares, Jason Priestly, Randy Travis, and don't forget Garth Brooks. -Jmh123 07:13, 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!