July 2007 (UTC) 

 :I submit that there is absolutely no need for you to reconsider your deletion.  Your decision was correct given the article's content.  The request for you to reconsider comes from an editor who is part of a cabal of editors who proliferate the most mediocre of articles on gay porn stars: articles filled with irrelevancy, unsourced statements, unnecessary references to porn sites or retail porn sellers, and content added to give the impression of the notability of the subject.  These articles are simply horrible and totally unencyclopedic; they don't read like bio's, they read like synopses on DVD covers or like an actor profile at a porn studio site or a retail porn site.  Attempts to remove the articles through the various deletion processes are met with editors scrambling to find articles to quickly add to the articles, to prevent deletion.  The situation is such that only earlier today an admin (?) changed a speedy delete tag on an article to a prod tag in order to allow the above-referenced editor additional time to add references to that article, so it wouldn't be speedily deleted: look under Keep and Reply in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Kage.  If an article isn't properly sourced over a considerable period of time, or if an article is written in such a way as to advertise the porn actor and his studios and all his videos and where they can be purchased, then it shouldn't be allowed to stand.  I don't like what I'm seeing.  It is beyond my scope to monitor all of what is happening, but I suggest that the situation ought to be looked into by the appropriate authorities at Wikipedia.  Thank you.   00:31, 6