Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Opening comments

I think it looks pretty good. I'll try and think about whether there's anything I'd add or change. Шизомби 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Great! I just added a section detailing why the Google test shouldn't be used. Any thoughts or concerns on that? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that makes sense. I think an Alexa test of the performer's official website would also be problematic. Шизомби 17:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Google Trends? http://www.google.com/trends?q=traci+lords%2C+ron+jeremy%2C+sunny+leone%2C+erica+campbell&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

Google Trends isn't a great tool to use either, because it is based off Google's search results (and it's also a beta-product to boot). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Gay porn stars

I think this is an excellent basis for determining whether articles should be included, generally. My concern is that the "100 movies" criterion is impossibly high for gay porn stars. I don't know if there would be more than one or two of the existing articles at List of gay porn stars that would qualify. And then, those performers are not necessarily all that important to gay porn -- they just managed to stay around a lot longer. It seems to be the nature of gay porn that performers either choose to leave the business after only a small number of films, or the audiences gets bored and moves on to the next hottest thing. Zeromacnoo 10:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this isn't meant to be a requirement, rather a "performer may not be notable otherwise, but has an unusual amount of persistence" criterion. Many clearly notable straight stars have less than 100 movies: Seka (50), Juliet Anderson (70), Shauna Grant (30), and so forth; they're listed for other reasons.

Bambi Woods has even less than them, but I think would still be considered notable. I guess we need to think about why. Шизомби 17:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bambi Woods is notable for being in Debbie Does Dallas, which is an iconic movie, similar to Deep Throat or The Devil in Miss Jones. Again, the film number threshold is meant to help weed out the entries to non-notable porn stars, because most porn actresses tend to do a handful of movies then drop off the face of the porn world, as it were. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although I guess a related question to Notability for pornographic actors is Notability for pornographic movies. The DDD article states it is famous, but doesn't explain why beyond mentioning the sequels and spinoffs. I suspect it has one of the highest name-recognition factors of any porno; I think I'd heard of it in elementary school - middle school, certainly. Its iconic nature needs to be indicated better. Шизомби 04:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My work has been with porn actresses, so my knowledge of gay porn actors is strikingly limited. What is the number of films a gay porn actor have to be in order to be notable? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What would be a "performer has notable endurance" number of films for in gay porn? AnonEMouse 13:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability and porn: big debate

That's very long, sorry, but I hope it helps!

The question of notability of pornography has been a complicated one since pornography is, and establishing criteria of notability for porn stars and movies in many ways reiterate the old question that is “should we talk of pornography at all?” Before the 80s, Film Studies scholar would only talk about “the canons,” while popular entertainment was disdained because of lack of artistic relevance. With the introduction of Cultural Studies approaches, the academic world started to think that any cultural artefact that circulates within a subculture has some relevance as it reveals something about the people who use it. Establishing criteria for the relevance of a porn performer or movie then falls into the old approach that will only consider relevant the study of canons, as if the rest is void of social relevance.

Furthermore, as pornography is a strong subculture, establishing a consensus on notability is almost impossible, as someone outside of that subculture will never be able to judge efficiently what happens within it. Gay porn is a good example: nobody might understand the importance of one gay porn star if they are not watching gay porn. The fact that a user created an article for a porn star means that this performer means something to him, and that might be shared by others. Also, many gay porn stars have not done anything that is especially notable, but gay porn is very important to many gay men and a force in queer culture. Thus some porn stars play an important role in the life of some gay men, though this importance might be harder to describe. In addition, I think that Wikipedia offers a possibility for minoritary subcultures to gather, structure, and preserve their knowledges, so a lot of the process should be delegated to the people of those subgroups.

Suggestion:

This said, I understand that we don’t want Wikipedia to go everywhere: I suppose it should not be a database of porn stars and movies, and certainly not a place for advertising porn. I think that the question we should focus on is not “What porn star is notable,” but “what is notable information on a porn star?” This could actually solve the problem, because if there is no notable information on a porn performer, well... they don’t deserve an article. Thus, I think that, instead of removing article on porn stars, we should first remove information in their articles that is not notable, verifiable, or that is dubious (and there is a lot of that.)

Defining criteria for notable information is going to be another debate, I know. What is important is that we should not replicate the information obtained by porn industry sources (which are, more than often, a form of advertising.) First, biographical details are too often made up by porn studios: birth date, sexual experience, cock size (especially in gay porn), etc. They should not be on Wikipedia unless they are taken from secondary sources (i.e. an academic article, a published biography...) or referenced as such (eg. “His popularity was due for what was said to be a 14-inch dick.”) If we are to prove the relevance of something, we have to show our ability to go “meta” with it, while staying neutral: saying “Mr X. is the hottest porn star we have seen in a long time” is simply repeating what the industry says to sell more videos; saying “Throughout his career, Mr. X has been celebrated in the porn press for [reasons]” seems more like engaging the whole picture, and opens the door for criticism.

Perhaps our work now should be to clean-up existing articles on porn and remove what seems to be directly taken out of a porn advertizement or to contribute to it without subtlety. And removing those links to “porn reviews” from commercial websites (and letting know the users that post them). One thing that bugs me, is the habit some have taken in gay porn articles to list all the performers in the videos listed in a porn star article. While the videography is relevant for the researcher that wants to seek more information about a performer, the details seem to make the article dense without purpose (and the information on the videos are available on online stores and with Google search.)

However, some movies would deserve their articles too, and some not... should we start another discussion on the notability of porn movies articles???

Thanks for reading and feel free to disagree! Em79 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree? I couldn't agree more! I think this identifies this issue much better than I was able to! Two conclusions that I have drawn:

1. A performer who starred in a small number of high profile flicks made by a big studio like Falcon Studios that have been widely distibuted/sold is more likley to be of interest that one who has made dozens or even hundreds of flicks for backstreet shops with no distribution.
2. A well-written and properly-linked article with some real biographical information will be of more interest to readers than one than does little more than list the flicks.

Both of these conclusions argue against using a strict numbers test. I understand that what is being proposed is not using a strict numbers test, but rather using a numbers tests as one of several guideines. Unfortunately, the deletionists out there will always want to do the quick and easy test in order to support their case for deletion. I don't think that we should given them that weaon for their arsenal. Much thanks to Joe for beginning this discussion. Zeromacnoo 08:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the above, and would suggest that a performer who only starred in a single film would merit inclusion if that film happened to be an iconic groundbreaking or blockbuster feature by industry standards. bd2412 T 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That last would be #4, "Performer has made unique, noteworthy contributions to her field", though I guess we should add that as a more specific bullet. Probably the iconic example of that is Bambi Woods. Another would be Linda Lovelace, though she's also notable as an activist. AnonEMouse 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Criteria

Section seems vague considering what it is for.

"The more a person adheres to this criteria, the more they are likely to have an article" isn't very clear. Remember, the point of a Notability section is to answer arguments on WP:AFD, which a section like that doesn't. Is one criterion enough? Does it take two? Five?

If you look at WP:BIO, you'll see it says "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles", which is pretty clear - if you meet one of these tests, you're in. Criteria starts that way, with clear criteria like "About 100 movies; award; unique contribution" but then tapers off.

I suggest changing the Criteria intro sentence to be much like the one in WP:BIO "The following types of porn stars may merit...".

I'd remove "information is properly verified from reliable sources and cited." as a point, and write it as a modifying sentence either above or below the points. It's not a notability criterion in itself, it's a requirement to document the other ones: "She's been in 103 movies? Who says?"

I'd get rid of "Performer has crossed over" - if they're notable in the other field, then they'll be listed in the other field, but being not notable in porn and not notable in writing, does not make them notable in the combination either.

Should "been on the cover of a major men's magazine" be another criterion? AnonEMouse 13:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said here... except for the "been on the cover of a major men's magazine". I don't think that should be a criteria. If we're going to use magazines as a criterion, it should be something along the lines of "been a Playboy Playmate (either Playmate of the Year or Playmate of the Month), or a Penthouse Pet (again, either Penthouse Pet of the Year or of the Month)". This would make it more notable, in my view. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised that no one has noticed this yet... But isn't it somewhat sexist to state "major men's magazine" and afterwards to specify magazines such as "playboy" and "penthouse" and not to give any examples for the other side of the fence? Especially when the article seems to be gender-neutral, and specifies "actors and actresses". I think any criteria could stand to be more inclusive, either be more general, like "major adult entertainment magazines", perhaps linking to an article with a list of such popular magazines (which would allow the defining of the phrase in the reader's mind), and if you want to list examples, maybe list playboy / playgirl, and a few others, or say "has won awards in featured adult magazines (been playboy playmate, playgirl playmate, etc)". Something like that... Just a thought. [ 4:43am, 13 June 2006 (EST) ]

Absolutely right! The silly sexism of that criterion just leapt out at me. How has it survived for so long on that page? It's both sexist and heteronormative since it's clear from the context that it refers to women who've appeared on magazines written for an audience of men. What is this? Women don't watch porn? Their interests are so unimportant that they can be defined out of existence? Please, someone needs to change that very POV criterion to something worthy of an encyclopedia. Interlingua ^talk 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How many criteria?

I guess I'm not clear on the criteria either. How many criteria must a performer meet to qualfy a notable" Is meeting one criterion enough? Must she/he meet a majority of the criteria? Or all the criteria? The current wording does not make it clear. If meeting one criterion is sufficient, then I think that the concerns I identified above have been addressed. Zeromacnoo 03:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My thought on this was the more criteria that were met, the more secure the article would be from deletion. With that being said, however, I want to try to avoid making this a numbers game, so meeting one crtieria is usually sufficient. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about clarifying the intro paragraph? It curently reads:

The following are criteria that define a notable pornographic actor or actress, and thus may merit an article on Wikipedia. Just because they don't fall under one of these criteria does not automatically mean that a biographical article should be deleted.

It might be clearer if it were to read:

A notable pornographic actor or actress may merit an article on Wikipedia if they meet one or more of the following are criteria. Failure to meet any of these criteria, however, does not necessarily mean that an actor or actress does not merit an article on Wikipedia.

This should provide some flexibility. Comments? Zeromacnoo 12:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried about that second sentence. While there are probably going to be some exceptions, mainly because we are only human and haven't thought of all possibilities here, in most cases, yes, failure to meet any of these criteria does mean the actor or actress does not merit an article on Wikipedia. That's pretty much the point of making these criteria, in my humble opinion. AnonEMouse 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How about:

A notable pornographic actor or actress may merit an article on Wikipedia if they meet one or more of the following are criteria. While there may be exceptions in extreme cases, failure to meet any of these criteria will result in an article's deletion from Wikipedia.

Maybe that would work. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that's making it even stronger than WP:BIO. I don't think we should do that - WP:BIO is still going to be the overriding guideline, this is just a special case. Let's see. WP:BIO says "Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." That's almost the same as what we have now, and similar to the second sentence of Zeromacnoo's proposal. How about this:

A notable pornographic actor or actress may merit an article on Wikipedia if they meet one or more of the following criteria. Failure to meet any of these criteria, however, does not necessarily mean the person does not merit an article on Wikipedia, if there are other reasons, not considered here, that the person is notable, such as meeting other criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people).

That makes it more specific as to what we mean - we have specifically considered the Google test, number of movies, specific awards, etc., and on the other hand, we are specifically allowing other things from WP:BIO that we haven't mentioned. I also struck the word "are" from the first sentence. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Meeting criterion number 3, "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month)" shouldn't necessarily validate someone's inclusion if this is the only one of the criteria they meet. If they didn't make multiple appearances, or go on to do other work, or meet some of the other criteria, I don't think they qualify as notable.

I realize that the language says, "may merit an article if they meet one or more..." but this might be a wide doorway through which articles will get shoved.

However, if number 3 is going to remain one of the criterion, it would be better if the language were a bit more inclusive (as was mentioned above) and created a criterion that was a bit more difficult to meet. In an attempt to keep it simple and not clutter things up with Straight, Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Transgendered, Cross-Dresser, etc., perhaps something along the following lines?

3.  As a model, has appeared at least three times as the centerfold or featured model in any widely-distributed publication featuring nude models.

As to number 1 and the issue of what a good number of films would be, would the following language be a good substitute?

1.  As a movie performer, has a body of work that meets or exceeds the average amount of work for performers in his or her area of the industry.

Is this any improvement? Chidom 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeated mainstream media appearances

This is to formalize the infamous Air Force Amy rule, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force Amy, where the article was basically kept due to multiple minor appearances on Howard Stern and HBO. This is not quite the same as rule 6, "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy", since no one of her appearances was particularly noteworthy or controversial in itself, just their sum total amounted to notability.

I'd phrase it something like: "Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets".

It may let us keep Gina Lynn, for example, who wouldn't seem to qualify otherwise (notable overbite?). AnonEMouse 15:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Although if a person is the sole person to appear on the cover of a DVD box and appear with their name, perhaps that is also an indicator of some degree of notability (or if their name is in the title of the movie). Шизомби 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be an unrelated issue. I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few movies with only non-notable performers, where "someone has to be on the cover". Maybe we could add:

"Appeared, with their name, as the sole person on the cover of a DVD from a notable company" ... though frankly that seems to be opening up a big can of worms. I won't fight to the death against this guideline, but I think it's better not. -- AnonEMouse 19:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)`

I am in agreement with AnonEMouse. It's not a criterion that I feel comfortable with adding, and it would cause more harm than good. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about the "repeated mainstream media appearances", though? Should we add it? AnonEMouse 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, given that it was a criterion that saved Air Force Amy from deletion. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't this just a form of the Name recognition from Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Vegaswikian 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for prime time?

Shall we move this to the main Wikipedia namespace for wider discussion? Make it an official proposal for notability guideline? AnonEMouse 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been in the incubator long enough. Let's do it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly it should be added to the centralized discussion template? Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log Шизомби 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be a party pooper

But this will die in the arse if you try to make it policy/guideline/whatever. You'll hear fifteen voices crying as one "no need for this, see WP:BIO" faster than a rat up a drainpipe. Have a look at WP:MEME for an example. - brenneman^{L} 05:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we shall see. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Porn people and verifiability

It would seem that porn articles pose a uniquely difficult problem where verifiability is concerned. With most bio articles, we can more or less consider biographical information from official sources to be basically true. In porn, however, such information cannot be relied upon, as porn people regularly create wholly false bios depending on the image they want to project, and which may change at any time. In extreme cases, one female porn person might have several conflicting identities at once, say as an American girl-next-door type, a Swedish sex goddess, and a Brazillian beach babe. Some even use multiple names or aliases. To further obfuscate the problem, I recall some discussion awhile back that certain porn article subjects didn't want their real names published on WP at all, and led to debates whether they should be removed (I think they eventually were). Needless to say, these aren't probelms we often run into when writing about physicists and Nobel prize winners.

It's obvious that WP will always have some amount of coverage of the porn industry. The articles for Ron Jeremy and Traci Lords aren't going to go away, nor should they. When covering obscure topics, though, we must consider that verifiability is NOT optional, and we must further ask ourselves whether the difficulty in achieving a verifiable encyclopedic NPOV article on "human toilet #7" in Turd-Gulping Gutter Sluts, Volume 71 is worth such an article's potential informational value to an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem of less-that-reliable biographical information is not limited to porn. Politicians, religious figures, lawyers, businessmen, and movie stars have all been accused of shading, or outright ripping up and throwing away the truth about themselves. In fact, I suspect the academics you refer to may be the exception rather than the rule in that respect; and even they are not immune. The rules for verifiability are no different here than elsewhere; as WP:V says, unreliable sources can be cited to describe themselves in non-controversial ways; if you have more reliable sources, please use them instead or as well. Would it be useful to mention the fact that porn bios tend to more puffery than the average university bio dirctly in the proposal?

This proposal is actually here to codify that we should not, be writing articles about the HT#7s of this industry, but only the truly notifiable ones; and to make the dividing lines more clear. If HT#7 has 97 films, a 60 minutes report, or a talk show career, yes; if one appearance, and no mention elsewhere, no. This proposal is specifically to reduce the arguments about just what makes a porn star notable. There will still be some, but at least now we'll have some specifics to go by. AnonEMouse 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Magazine covers?

We've got "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month)." as a criterion of notability. That's not quite the same as their cover - they're sometimes the same, but more usually not. What about magazine covers?

Specifically, I noticed Tiffany Rayne, whom the main author of this proposal nominated as WP:PROD. She has a Hustler cover. So, two questions:

1. Are covers of major adult magazines as much criteria of notability as centerfolds?
2. Is Hustler considered as major as Playboy or Penthouse? (I believe they have a monthly centerfold as well.)

(This wasn't really discussed when the criterion was added.) AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Good questions AnonEMouse. Playboy Playmates and Penthouse Pets tend to be far more notable than mere cover girls, as evidenced by their entries. Secondly, I don't feel that being on the cover of a major magazine is enough notability to justify an entry, unless the model is pictured repeatedly over time; most of the time, anyway, the cover girl is either the Playmate or Pet of the Month/Year. As for Hustler, it's a major magazine, but I'll freely admit that I'm not a Hustler reader, so I don't know if it has something similar to the Penthouse Pet or Playboy Playmate. (I don't see any related lists from the Hustler entry, so I assume not.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly called Hustler Honeys per hustlercenterfolds.com Шизомби 01:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and abo-fucken-lutely, if she's on the cover and a centerfold of one of the big three! There's only a dozen or maybe 13 a year, so out of BILLIONS of women on the planet there's 36 a year that wear that honor, hell yeah put 'em in here! Brjatlick 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Internet Models

Does this article intend to encompass models whose primary source of interest is Internet related? - Socks

Eventually. As indicated in Wikipedia:How to create policy, it is impossible to try to cover every angle. The focus is more on porn stars at the moment than actual Internet-only models... so that's the only reason why Internet models aren't covered in this proposal currently. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The number 100

I'm not sure that picking numbers really works. The failed school notability debate may be one example of why not to use numbers. I consider one of the causes it failed to be the selection of three sentences as the minimum for an article. This was thrown out as a talking point and then moving it higher seems to be impossible. In this case we have a number of 100 which is likely an excessive number that many would view as an attempt to keep these articles out of this wiki. Rather then number of films, I think the requirement should be listing in a common movie database and some indication of staying power (length of career). The number game clearly is unfair to actors in very specific niche areas like gay, toys or bdsm. This number approach also does not address internet actors who may not have any films. Yes there are other criteria, but they are not all that broad. Vegaswikian 18:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Listing in a common movie database is not a good criterion of notability, as the IMDB, IAFD, and AFDB all seem to be trying to list as many as possible, regardless of notability. Length of career seems like a possible additional qualifying criteria, if you can be more specific. How long would you consider a sufficiently notable length of career? 5 years of continuous work, maybe? 10?

Would that also be good for internet-only actors? We've sort of ruled out the Google test, which would otherwise seem to be the best for internet-only actors ... Wait, are there any notable internet-only pornographic actors, when you come down to it? Please, name some examples that should be obviously notable. Then we can see what made them notable, and make sure similar qualifications are in the list. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I did not say 'only in something like the IMDB', but that and something else. I'm not sure what a reasonable career is in terms of simply years. Is someone who works for 10 years and does 10 films more notable then someone who works 1 year and does 30 films? Vegaswikian 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The number 100 was chosen because it was a decent round number that most people seemed to agree with during AfDs of porn related articles. Thus there seems to be a consensus that, while never directly stated in black and white, people with more than 100 films are notable. Obviously, this would apply more towards typical "mainstream" pornography than the niche stuff, such as BDSM, "gay male porn", or transsexual porn. I don't believe 100 is all that unreasonable a number. Also, there are performers that have only acted in pornography a short time, yet are notable for different reasons: Seka, Linda Lovelace, et al. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The people notability criteria to keep the audience of 5,000 limit is under discussion with a suggestion to remove it since it has issues. The suggested replacement is

• Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
• Recording musicians with significant sales in a major market or genre or whose work is independently recognized for its influence (see WikiProject Music's Notability and Music Guidelines)
• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single news event only count as one coverage.)

I raise this point here to illustrate that hard numbers cause problems. If 5,000 books can be too high in many cases, it should be clear that 100 movies is completly unreasonable. Vegaswikian 17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that 100 movies is not a requirement, but an additional way to qualify. As mentioned in many places on this page, many stars with significantly fewer performances are quite notable. It is, instead, a relatively easily determined criterion to accept stars who are notable simply for the breadth of their work, assuming that anyone who performed so much must be notable. In other words, if you don't like this criterion, the way to argue against it isn't to say "it's too high", but rather to say "it's too low". Is that, in fact, what you are arguing? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Correct, but the number is still unreasonable. Make it 1-10 and it becomes reasonable. Or replace it with other criteria that can be met. The point I made above shows that numbers are not good measures. So having this as an option is on that will not get used much because it is an unreasonable number. What percentage of actors would meet this benchmark? What percentage of these actors would meet this benchmark before meeting another criteria? Vegaswikian 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, you'd be surprised how many. Remember, a porn movie is an average of only about 1-3 days of acting work - an energetic performer could do that in less than a year. I would think 25% of those we list would meet that, which for 1 out of 7 criteria is pretty high. Let's look at, oh, Category: Male porn stars beginning with A: Buck Adams: 272 movies; Brad Armstrong - IMDb link - 148 movies; Mark Ashley - follow IMDB link - 368 movies; That's 100%! But males generally do more films. Let's look at Category: Female porn stars beginning with A: Cumisha Amado IMDb 85 films - not 100, but arguably close; An (porn star) IMdb 2 - that's not good, I'd say there's an AFD candidate; Eva Angelina "over 150". So out of the first 6 randomly chosen existing entries, 4 meet and 1 comes close. I wouldn't say that's too high a bar at all. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reduced to 50

User:Haham hanuka seems to have reduced the number in question to 50, without joining in our discussion or otherwise giving his reasoning. Let's invite him here to explain why he thinks 50 is better than 100. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that this (and this as well]) might be the impetus for the edit. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

50 is a lot of movies, many porn stars do not have recored of 100 films but yet deserve a Wikiepdia article. --Haham hanuka 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Prior to the deployment of VHS, I would probably have agreed with you. Since the inception of DVD, VOD, and other revolutionary technologies, 50 is painlessly easy to obtain -- really, if you look at it, many porn stars can make 20 films, but scenes from those films can be added into compilations. (Porn has no need for the traditional trappings of "mainstream" films, and scenes can be strung together since porn is fairly generic anyway.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean 50 scenes. --Haham hanuka 18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the number of scenes for borderline notable performers is hard to verify - do you know of a source that lists unique scenes? The number of movies is much easier - go to IMDB or IAFD or half a dozen other sites (www.adult-pornstar-mall.com and count.

Also, I have to admit the combination of "many ... deserve" in your reasoning above troubles me. If someone has said "many nuclear physicists don't have many articles, publications, or inventions yet deserve an article", it would seem fairly easy to say - no, they don't, let them become truly notable, either to the world at large, or at least within their field, first. I can't help but think the same should apply to porn stars. If a criterion is truly filled by "many", it's not that unusual. I just don't think making 50 films makes a star unusual in the modern world of porn. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As AnonEMouse correctly points out, defining a criteria based on the number of unique scenes is incredibly unrealistic, as there is no way to track it. (The only source that comes close to determinining pornographic film compilations is the IAFD, and even then it does appear to be difficult at best.) Given previous AFDs, the threshold should stay at 100 films, regardless of whether or not they are compilations from previously filmed material. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Magazine appearances

I believe the criteria should also take into account proliferation of magazine appearances. A model who may have only made a few films, has won no awards, and has not appeared in Playboy may still IMO be notable if she's made many appearances in major magazines. I'm thinking, for random example, someone like SaRenna Lee (though that might be a bad example as she's done some mainstream work as well). 23skidoo 04:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an intersting point. Though how would we determine a "proliferation of magazine appearances"? Would all magazines count or just select few? Also, how many appearances qualifies as notable? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This also has to be related to the person's notability within a genre. For example, Via Paxton is currently up for AFD. She is quite notable within her genre (I even recognize the name), but she'll never appear on the cover of Playboy, so the policy is somewhat discriminatory as it currently stands. 23skidoo 12:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Via Paxton" rule

Our fearless leader has withdrawn the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Via Paxton (second nomination) due to a unanimous collection of good arguments for keeping. The arguments themselves, however, aren't in WP:PORN BIO yet. I suggest that in the tradition of the "Air Force Amy" rule they should be codified as one or more criteria. Let's see; I read the arguments made were that she:

1. Was notable and prolific within her (big bust) genre niche.
2. Has made many (15) appearances in major magazines. (I'm not sure what major means in this context - major within the bug bust genre only, or major by terms of absolute sales? If the latter, what are the magazine sales that should be considered major for our purposes?)
3. Has had a movie that is just about her, with her name in the title, produced by a major studio.

Which of these should become PORN BIO criteria? Or are they not notable in themselves, unless someone fulfills all of them? If the latter, should we add another section for "minor criteria", criteria that don't qualify a performer by themselves, but do if the performer fulfills several, say three, of them? If the latter, we could probably add "has made unique appearances on many Web sites" and the Google rule there. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that section covering niche material -- the "Niche Criteria", if you will -- is necessary. Under the present notability guidelines, this isn't covered as well as it should be. But that's OK, this is a "living" proposal guideline that can change over time, as dictated by current events. (As always, I ask that everyone bear in mind that the burden of determining whether or not a performer meets the niche criteria is still up to the original contributors to said articles, and that they, under the criteria for speedy deletion, can be speedy deleted at any time for failing to assert notability.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days without further comment, so I've added the genre niche criterion. I'd be happier if there were a number attached to it, rather than just prolific but that would probably be different for different genres. I asked, above, what would make someone "prolific" within gay porn, but never got an answer. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, numbers are problems. So are subjective terms like prolific. Prolific in the genre of 'males who receive while drinking wine and smoking at the same time' might be prolific at 2. While the genre of givers would be higher in a number based system. However if you were to combine prolific with other criteria like ' and in a best of list and featured in a magazine' you now have less of a concern about about prolific means since its use is restriced by using it with other objective criteria. I look at most criteria to be a way to control article quality by having a hurdle that keeps us from having to add everything. Criteria should not be used to target, or give the appearance of targeting, a group with the intent of keeping them out. Vegaswikian 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to "erotic"

I've moved this from "Notability (pornographic actors)" to "Notability (erotic actors)" because the word pornographic is frequently seen as derogatory. Arguably, "adult film actors" would be better, because that's how the industry usually seems to refer to itself. But "erotic" seems to get the point across -- we're talking about people who get naked and/or have sex for other people's entertainment -- without sounding rude. --FOo 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I left the shortcut at WP:PORN BIO intentionally; the word "porn" seems to be somewhat less derogatory than "pornographic", and is certainly more vivid and memorable ... which is a good thing in a shortcut. --FOo 03:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with this at present. However, I disagree that "adult film actors" would be better, seeing as the term "adult film" isn't specific enough of a term. Yes, while the adult film industry tends to use that terminology, it's fairly elusive, unless you happen to be familiar with the connection between that evasive term and its connotation to pornography. Also, if this proposal does extend beyond actors into erotic models and other niche fields, we might be in for a few more name changes... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, pornographic is flat out what it is, look up pornography for the origin of the word. It's porn and it's proud, baby. Brjatlick 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find it, but somewhere in the Wikipedia:manual of Style and the associated guides is the advice to avoid euphemisms. We're writing an encyclopedia here. We should use the clearest terminology available, and not try to be coy or cute about things. The average reader will go searching for information about porn stars, and not about erotic actors, or adult film actors. Similarly, an "escort" is usually a prostitute, so we shouldn't hide things from the reader by saying that so-and-so works as an escort, when she does most of her work on her back.

Furthermore, changing now would mean chaning the categories and links to lists of porn stars in hundreds and hundreds of articles. I think our time is better spent elsewhere.

Finally, pornography and erotica are different things. Let's not confuse the two. And "adult films" is vague even if it is a euphemism commonly used by the industry: do we mean something wit a PG rating? Zeromacnoo 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to reconsider my view above. I do view "erotic" as a bit misleading, as Zeromacnoo stated. I would propose a straw vote to determine where everyone stands on the name. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 23:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Erotic" is decidedly misleading, and "adult" probably even moreso. For example, the movie Eyes Wide Shut was quite erotic, and definitely intended to be watched by adults, but obviously not what we're discussing here. If we're going to bother having any pornography-related articles at all, we can't be shy about using the word pornography to describe them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The following straw poll will end June 30, 2006 at 10:00 A.M. CST.

Revert to "pornographic actors"

• Per Zeromacnoo. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 23:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Per Joe Beaudoin Jr. Zeromacnoo 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. How's that for circular. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak revert. I have to admit, I kind of like weasel words, even though I know I shouldn't. :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert for clarity and because euphamism in general should be avoided. See my comment above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• I vote for the revert - I'm not very PC anyway LOLOldcritter 05:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Change to "Adult Film Actors"

• but leave the shortcut as porn ;-P Kuronue 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Move concluded

Per the straw poll and consensus regarding this issue, I have moved the page back to its proper namespace. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Test of Time

Reading the above comments, I wonder if a "test of time" rule might be usefully implemented. I am thinking of performers who, though perhaps not meeting the other criteria, are still notable many years (10?) after they have left the industry. A specific example might be Kandi Barbour, who remains popular to this day. Your thoughts? Oldcritter 06:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a fine criterion, except that I don't know how anyone would demonstrate "still notable". For example, for Barbour, how do you plan to show she "remains popular to this day"? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that can get pretty subjective. In her case, I would go by continued availability of virtually every movie she made, usenet traffic about her, prices paid at auction for magazines and photos of her. It has been about 23 years since she left the business, and yet she remains marketable. Does marketable equal notable? I'm thinking yes, but I'd like to hear other opinions. Personally, I find the wikipedia listiings of even the more minor porn stars from the 70's and 80's useful, particularly when coupled with a photograph to ID them.Oldcritter 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Marketable does equal notable... if done correctly. My concern is where would we get this information? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My experience is that adult movies go out of print very quickly, except for those that are steady sellers. I'm thinking if the majority of a certain performer's catalog is still available after, say, 10 years, that is pretty good proof they are still marketable. The other points are much hard to quantify - maybe we can come up with something that makes sense.Oldcritter 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is how do we determine which titles are still in print? Also, finding out such information likely borders on personal research... On the other hand, if a movie is still in circulation, we must also ask why it is still in circulation. For instance, does it mean that it is in circulation because of a certain performer, or because it is considered a fine piece of pornography? We must also ask how we determine such things as well, without being POV. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese AV Idols

I'm coming across articles on Japanese adult video idols that don't demonstrate notability. However, my lack of knowledge in this area (and the fact that there are articles on the Japanese Wikipedia on every AV idol) makes me unable to make a determination on whether or not they should be included in the English-language Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any way to determine how popular these are outside of Japan? If they don't have a distribution network, then I would think they are not notable for this wiki. Given that working for only a year was considered normal I can see lots of justification for deletion. Most aritcles don't seem to indicate how many films they are in which could be used to gave some idea of how active they were. One listed the notable act as group sex with five African-American men. Somehow that does not seem enought to be notable here. You could try listing a few on AfD and see what results. Just provide a good case for why they don't belong on this wiki. Vegaswikian 05:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This has all the usual problems of the cultural bias of the English Wikipedia towards artifacts of the English-speaking peoples, crossed with the problems of notability of people in a heavily hyped/advertised field. I suggest that we punt, and simply allow the Japanese Wikipedia to dictate notability here. Better that, than to give the issue to American otaku. ^.^; --FOo 06:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree in general. We do need to use our own standards. True, there can be an English-speaking cultural bias, but we can allow for that; we shouldn't let another Wikipedia make all our decisions for us (though it certainly can be a strong argument one way or the other). No reason why American, Canadian, or Australian otaku are necessarily worse at judging these things than Japanese otaku. :-).

For the specific cases that JB is asking about, though, I don't know. Maybe looking at them will help. Joe, can you list a few here as specific examples? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See Category:Japanese porn stars. Vegaswikian 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's go through the first few there in alphabetical order.

• Kyoko Aizome. Article said she was in one of Japan's first hardcore porn films, which sounded notable, also worked with Traci Lords and now writes an advice column, which latter two might not be enough in themselves, but don't hurt. I Googled a bit, and found an archive of an Asahi Shimbun article that said it was in fact the first Japanese hardcore, not just one of them. That's pretty notable, I think I'd fight pretty hard for keeping that one. I added the link to the article.
• Minori Aoi - article lists a birth, and a fair bunch of films (35, including several with her name in the title). I Googled around a bit, and found mostly galleries (34,000 hits), but only one interview (added that, and a female adult bio template, with a skimpy afdb link). Skimpy, but not an obvious speedy.
• Sora Aoi - relatively long article, 69 films listed, a fair number of external links, and something about punk music and a top 10 Internet search. I added a skimpy imdb link to the template.
• Ami Ayukawa, Kyoko Ayana, ... - ah, I begin to see the pattern. Seems we have some hard working and dedicated editors who do their best with little to work with.

I hate to say this, but after looking at these first 5 or so, I think most of them should go. The articles have nothing to say. From reading them, there is no way to tell one of these stars from another even now, and new ones come along every year. In this batch, I'd keep Kyoko Aoizome strongly, Sora Aoi weakly, and delete the rest. The others don't come close to meeting WP:BIO. There is nothing here about English bias, but give us some articles that say more than measurements and list of films, tell us why they're unique, why they stand out above all others, give us something interesting to read. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. Perhaps we should put the ones that should go through AFD to see what the community thinks. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm not an expert in this subject, but then again, it seems neither of those commenting are, and I have found an extreme bias in the English-speaking wiki in comparison to other wikis when it comes to non-english cultures. Wiki is not paper. Ain't there a rule that says an article doesn't harm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementduval (talk • contribs) 00:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-criteria Monica Lewinsky test

That a person should not be included just because: "The person has a relationship with a well-known person." could fail the Monica Lewinsky and Lady Hamilton test. Both these women have entries purely through having relationships with well known people, and neither have the additional distinction of being pornographics actors. SilkTork 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

We may need to write that somewhat more clearly, then. I think the point is that even though ML and LH became notorious purely through relationships, they did become notorious, and that's what makes them qualified - the notoriety, not the relationship itself. The point the criterion is trying to make is that merely a line "Jane Smith was the girlfriend of punk rock star Joe Jones from November 2004 through December of 2005" wouldn't be enough. "Jane Smith caused a sensation with international newspaper headlines for having an affair with world-famous politician Bob Brown" probably would. Is there a better way to write that? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point SilkTork... This part needs clarity, as AnonEMouse said. Therefore, I propose adding the following wording under the "non-criteria":

1. The person has a relationship with a well-known, notable person.
   • Reason: Just because the person in question is related to a well-known person does not make that subject notable. The subject should be independently otable without defining notability through a relationship.
   • Exception: It must be noted that in more extreme cases (e.g. Monica Lewinsky and Lady Hamilton), the subject may gain notoriety from having a relationship with a notable person. Should the subject become notorious in the mainstream for having a relationship to a notable person, then the subject becomes notable.

Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 23:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Note the subtle distinction: Monica Lewinsky became world famous because of the impact of her relationship with Clinton. Similarly Lady Hamilton became the inspiration for independent work because of her relationship to Lord Nelson. Both have a notoriety of their own, which of course is centered around the significance of that relationship in the history of the other notable person. The guideline simply says that a relationship is not in itself sufficient. I don't think there is a need for any sort of exception.

Should not be a part of Wikipedia

Makes pages for these kinds of actors is very disturbing. It seems much too depraved to be making articles about. --Pichu0102 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your views have been noted and logged. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wording?

"around or over 100 films" is too weasely, IMO. It should say more than 100 and people with 85 films at IAFD should be evaluated under criteria 4 and 8. Eluchil404 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree because eighty five films is a fair amount, even for a pornographic actor. The purpose of this proposal is not to create artificial barriers for notable porn stars, but to prevent vanity entries by mom and pop "entertainers" just figuring out how to use their digital camcorder. Personally, I tend to look at this criteria along the lines of a grading scale of 1-100, 70-79 being a C, 80-89 a B, 90-100 an A and anything beyond that an A+. When things start to reach down into the 70s then I start to scrutinize whether or not there are any other achievements which may or may not merit inclusion. RFerreira 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

But that's not what the guideline says. You're free to disagree with the guideline (it's only a proposal after all) but 75-85 is not "around 100". I feel, and I think many feel likewise, that most professional porn actors are not notable and the guideline should reflect a more notable than average or a cream of the crop level. Eluchil404 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

75 is not, but I would argue that 85 is close enough that we should not be wasting our time attempting deletion. We host articles on hundreds, if not thousands of erotic film actors who aren't even in the ballpark of the upper 80s and 90s, and those are the ones I feel we should be discussing the merits of. See my user page for an example. RFerreira 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So basically you're saying that we should cleanup or remove the ones that have less than or equal to 75 films to their credit, then work on the tougher ones to see whether or not they should be included? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that I feel someone who has partook in 80+ erotic films is notable, notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, and that we should be focusing on the many non-notable one-offs which plague the site. With time, allow me to show by example what I mean. RFerreira 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the more than 100 wording, seeing as this is the criteria that I derived from AfDs prior to this proposal. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that the number of films criteria is only one of many criteria. If the subject meets another criteria in the list, then the # of films criteria doesn't have to be met. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think the 100 requirement needs to go altogether. It's uneven. 100 films would be a HELL of a lot for a fetish actor/actress. Guys have much longer careers than women, too: a career female porn star only gets about 10 years, and her career may be half over by the time they get to 100... whereas career male porn stars seem to stick around even into and in some cases through their 40s. As people have pointed out before, gay porn stars are even more fringe celebrities than straight stars, but they make a lot of films. Plus, although there are other criteria, people will always say "< 100 films, not notable" regardless of the other criteria: that's why litmus test criteria like these are a bad idea. Mangojuice^talk 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That will have the opposite effect of what you seem to want - it will lead to deleting more, not fewer articles. Note that there is a criterion for "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." which pretty clearly covers gay films and fetish films. It was created (elsewhere on this very talk page, in fact), to cover the "big-bust" fetish, and has been applied to at least one gay performer article. Notice also that in another AFD referred to here, the very second vote is "Delete - hasn't even won a[n adult film] award" - so if we get rid of criteria that can be misused, we won't have any left. By the way, I've asked several times what would be a notable number for gay performers, and have been ignored, but I'll try again. What would be a notable number of films for gay performers? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish someone who is in a better position to judge than I would make a comment but a quick glance at Category:Gay porn stars shows that men I have heard of have mostly 10-15 films (confirmable through IMDb). To me that suggests notable longevity would be reached with 20-25 videos. Any other takers? Eluchil404 01:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gay porn notability

There has been an interesting discussion of this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rhodes (porn star), where a "Falcon Exclusive" has been nominated for deletion because he has only 7 films, well short of the impossible-for-a-gay-porn-star-to-reach 100 films criterion. This is a good case study f why the current criteria fail gay porn stars. This is a pretty well put-together article for a Wikipedia article -- it has references, it's properly formatted, linked and categorized, and there is a picture. But yet it is nominated for deletion, while tens of thousands of other crappy articles are left unmolested.

As Mtparnas notes:

"As for the counting bean criterion for notability: it's quite off. Ryan Idol, one of the biggest gay (for pay) porn stars ever, appeared in around ten (10) non-compilation videos from 1990 to 1996. The reason he did so few was that he thought doing so many would make him more of a has-been a lot sooner. He was right. Idol is not alone...." Mtparnas 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mtparnas goes on to mention two of the biggest stars in gay porn of the 1990s, Rex Chandler (13 gay porn films, four non-porn films) and Jeff Stryker (24 non-compilation gay porn films).

I don't know where to go with this. Picking another arbitrary number is going to be contentious because it would have to be so low in comparison to 100 (think "5"), that there will be strenuous objections from people who ask why 100 is fair for straight porn and only 5 for gay porn.

It has also occurred to me that perhaps there should be different (lower) criteria for those who are currently in the biz. Erik Rhodes, for example, started in 2005, and has seven films, which is quite an accomplishment. Does Wikipedia have to wait for someone to have been in the biz for several years before it can have an article? Are up-and-coming performers to be automatically excluded?

Another thought is that there are major studios (Falcon/Jocks/Mustang, Bel Ami, Kristen Bjorn) in gay porn, and too many minor stuios to mention. Being in a Falcon flick automatically means wide distribution, and, in my view, notability. Being in a dozen films put out by a backstreet basement studio that distributes only to a handful of grubby shops may not mean notability. One person in the Erik Rhodes discussion has suggested that being a "Falcon Exclusive" is sufficient proof of notability, becuase of Falcon's market position, and I am inclined to agree.

Magazine appearances, on the other hand, are more difficult to judge for gay porn stars. no magazine has ever attained the sort of market share or industry standing of Playboy or Penthouse. The market is much more segmented between magainzes. Mags wax and wane. A magazine that may have been big in the 1980s may be in serious decline now or have stopped publishing. Is there a way of using appearance on a cover of a gay porn mag as evidence of notability? Zeromacnoo 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Loren

I was unaware that you were allowed to use proposed guidelines/policies to vote delete on AfD. Is this a valid reason? The article I'm referring to is the header (obviously), in which I've stated that she doesnt meet 7 out of the 8 criteria listed. To me this means the article should be deleted as long as you can use a proposed gl/pol. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 07:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If the community agrees to use the proposed guidelines, then proposed guidelines may certainly be used. (If people didn't agree with them, they obviously wouldn't be used.) The reasoning is quite simple: new policies or guidelines are grown organically from already pre-established consensus. What WP:PORN BIO strives to do is codify already established AfD precidents as well as test drive others that are not so well established. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Although my actual question is this: If an article fails 7/8's of the criteria, does the remaining 1/8th make it notable? And if not, can we add something to this proposal to that effect? SynergeticMaggot 07:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No it's a does he/she meet any of the bullets test. If she meets 1 out of 8 she is presumptively notable under the (propsed) guideline. Eluchil404 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats pretty weak. SynergeticMaggot 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's how these guidelines work, see WP:BIO. I agree that PORN BIO could use some tightening but that's seperate from how it is set up. Eluchil404 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As Eluchil said, WP:BIO works the same way, which is why WP:PORN BIO works this way as well. (Note that WP:PORN BIO is an extension to, and not a replacement of, WP:BIO.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Side comment - I don't think there is a single person in the world who meets all the criteria of WP:PORN BIO (begun a trend, crossed over, industry award, magazine centerfold, genre niche, others - all that at once would be truly remarkable). Even Jenna Jameson and Linda Lovelace only meet about half each. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

pictures and photo galleries

"The performer has many pictures and photo galleries online." why is this a non criteria? It says "does not mandate inclusion". Why not? Isn't a large number of photo galleries a kind of measure of popularity/notability ??? --HellFire 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No. This is a fallacy of the highest order, in my book, simply because of the nature of viral marketing, which the porn industry uses ad nauseum. Had this been pre-Internet, it could very well be argued (and doubtless supported) that the number and frequency of pictures constitutes some measure of notability. Also, many porn sites promote themselves by allowing other websites (referrers) to use photo galleries in order to promote sites. Hope that answers your question. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly second that. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, because the porn industry does a better job of promoting their actors online, their Google results are meaningless? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And you really don't think the mainstream film industry and music industry don't do the same thing for their acts? Not all porn companies use this "viral marketing" you speak of, and the ones that do don't use it for every single one of their actresses. There is hype everywhere, not just in the porn world. wikipediatrix 04:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Magazine appearances and other factors

brevity From Latin brevis, short. Noun. 1. The quality of being brief in duration. 2. Being concise. English Wiktionary    Just in case you think I don’t know the meaning of the word.

Frequent appearances by a gay porn performer (see New can of language worms, anyone? below) in magazines that enjoyed wide distribution at the time of the performer’s appearances in them would qualify as criteria for notability. A list of some titles that might qualify for enjoying wide distribution can be found at Vintage Gay Magazine Monthlies. Whether the publication is currently in production would not affect the notability to be gained by having appeared in it as long as it was in wide distribution at the time of the performer’s appearance in it.

To qualify, the performer would need to have appeared in multiple issues of one such publication or in single appearances in several of them.

Studios used to publish magazines as well, sometimes as graphic novel (photo–graphic, that is) versions of their films, but other times just as stand-alone publications with their own story line. Appearing in several of these, or one of these in combination with other publications, could qualify for notability. However, there is the issue of these appearances being studio-driven publicity, which may muck things up a bit, but if the studio felt they were worth that much promotion, does that lend some credence to notability? Are they notable if they became recognizable as a result?

The same could hold true for magazines, in that the magazines are going to include who’s hot and currently working as well as who’s up-and-coming. Magazines often “discovered” their own models who went on to become porn performers; other times, studios had magazines do photo layouts of their current performers.

So, how many “several” appearances is enough to qualify as being notable? I propose no less than three appearances in graphic novels and / or no less than five appearances in other publications. That’s based on personal observation that the same guys wind up doing layouts for several of the magazines, not just one; if the studio is going to push to promote a performer, it will be in multiple publications (their own or others), not just one. If the numbers seems small, remember that it's a much smaller market than straight porn with much less output.

I can also think of a few models in the gay magazines that appeared in more than one or two magazines, sometimes with several different layouts in different issues of the same magazines over a period of one or two years, who never went on to make a film. I’m sure their pictures would be highly recognizable; however, I doubt that anyone (including I) would remember their name. Does lack of name recognition for someone who has widespread visual recognition preclude notability?

Back to the issue of language

As to language, I personally would refer to Playboy, Penthouse, Playgirl, and most of the gay magazines listed in the link above as adult magazines. However, I would probably call graphic novels and publications such as Hustler and Club International porno magazines. I pretty much divide the two based on how explicit they are. The inclusion of contact with genitals—whether with the model’s own hand(s) or another’s—and / or penetration of any kind qualifies as porn. I know that Playgirl has blurred these boundaries in the past, including a photo layout of a couple having sex; I would still be more inclined to classify them as adult rather than porn based on the majority of their content.

I agree that the term erotic isn’t specific enough in these cases. For example, there are scenes in Raiders of the Lost Ark and many other action / adventure films that are highly erotic, but I wouldn’t categorize the film itself as being an adult film, nor a porno.

So I vote in favor of using porn in some cases and adult in others. Just to keep things confusing.

New can of language worms, anyone?

I could / would also take issue with porn actors—unless we’re using the broadest possible definition of that term. I like the word performers, which I don’t feel is a weasel word, as what many of these individuals do could hardly be called acting. Performing doesn’t necessarily include acting, but acting is a type of performing. I’m sure there are times, of course, when having sex with someone on film requires award-winning acting skills. Porno videos don't necessarily require acting; lest we start trying to decide whether Joe Schmoe was acting in all 18 of his flicks, or acting in four of the 18 and just performing in the others, maybe referring to them all as performances by performers would suffice.

If we really want to get crazed, there are also adult models that might be considered notable. I don’t know if they fall under the category performers, as often they aren’t performing, just modeling in front of a camera, albeit without clothes and possibly with an erection. I don’t think they necessarily can be classified as porn models, yet a distinction obviously needs to be made between these types of models and runway models in fashion shows or models in mainstream advertising. I'd vote in favor of adult models when they're limited to print work and / or non-sexual roles in films.

Some adult models may have appeared primarily in magazine photo shoots and internet galleries and achieved notoriety on that basis alone. Some of the early Colt models only appeared in Colt magazines, on Colt calendars, and on other retail merchandise. Because of the niche market that Colt commanded, however, these models were quite notable in their day.

A good example is Steve Kelso. He did multiple photo shoots for Colt Studios, had his own Colt calendar for multiple years as well as appearing in Colt calendars with other models, appeared in major adult magazines, and had his own website. However, he only appeared in one film, Intimate Hours, a film by Buckshot Productions (a division of Colt). He was, nevertheless, highly recognizable and marketable.

By the way, there is also a “Steve Kelso” listed on IMDB who is an actor / stuntman / stunt coordinator, etc. This isn't the same person; all the more reason that names of people need to have a descriptor included in the title of their article.

Maybe I’m just splitting hairs, but I think we’ve determined that language is important here—but these things are always relative. I may just be pickier than others. Chidom 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a great point, though I believe your are over-evaluating the subtle differences between pornography and adult publications. (And that's O.K., because I prefer evaluations to be as thorough as possible.) Granted, during the "Golden Age of Porn", there was more of an emphasis in acting, then in performing. With the advent of video tape (and, later on, webcams and so forth), this clearly declined into "he says this badly, she says that horribly, and they fornicate". (Or they say nothing at all, other than the occassional attempts a dirty talk, but let's not get into that.)

However, as pornography presently stands, I fully agree that language is an issue here, so perhaps this proposal should be renamed Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic performers and models), since that'll cover both? Or what about "pornographic subjects"? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 00:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic performers) might suffice; perhaps separating out models as being non-performers is a bit too precise.

I'd also be in favor of all articles on porn performers being titled in the format [[Person's Name (porn performer)]]. I realize that there are already 183 articles that are currently tagged "(porn actor)", and nearly another 2,000 tagged "(porn star)", but some are not tagged at all. If we adopt "(porn performer)" going forward, we can go back and change the others as they come up for revision or deletion or as time allows. (I realize it gets involved with referring pages, etc.) The tag could be omitted from the visible portion of references, i.e., [[Person's Name (porn performer)|Person's Name]].

The argument could be made that anyone included here should be considered a "star", but I think "performer" is more accurate.

On that topic, I just ran across "Randy White (American football)" vs. "Randy White (porn star)" vs. Randy White (politician) vs. Randy White (basketball). If we always put the "(porn performer)" tag on the relevant articles, there should be less confusion / disambiguation. I'd also suggest that in such cases where there's a close match discovered that the alternate name also get "tagged", so adding "(football player)" to Randy White's article title might be a good idea.Chidom 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC); Chidom 22:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a standard in tagging... but I don't believe that every article on a porn star needs the "(porn performer)" added to its name. It should only belong to articles where there is more than one article with a similar name.

As you bring up points regarding standardization, I believe there definitely needs to be a standardization in how we describe a pornographic performer. For instance, in the introductions to the article, porn performers are referred to as "porn stars", "erotic actors", "porn models", "pornographic actors", and etc. If we could codify a standard, then this would definitely help in maintaining consistency in regards to these types of articles. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of us being proactive when it comes to tagging performers. If someone's looking for John Doe the race car driver, for example, and there isn't a page for him, but there is one for John Doe the porn performer, aren't they going to be just a bit upset when they land on that sort of page with no warning? Also, if someone else adds an article for John Doe the race car driver after the article for John Doe the porn performer already exits, are they going to bother to add a tag to either page? Both? And wouldn't it be a pain to have to create a re-direct page at that point to avoid disambiguation? I'm not married to the idea, though—these were just the reasons I was proposing it.

As to your second point about standardization within articles as well, I would definitely vote in favor of always referring to them as porn performers if we do adopt something. Is this dictating content to authors, however? And where/how do we publish the standard? Remember that I've not been involved in creating pages, just editing so far. Chidom 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't view information on pornographic performers any differently than information on race car drivers and "mainstream" personalities. What if someone was looking for John Doe the porn performer and not the race car driver? Should we be concerned about their feelings as well? Or is this a non-issue, as I believe it to be.

As for standardization within articles, this would be more for the porn stars wikiproject to tackle than on a talk page for a notability proposal. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Movie studios and quality of films

The proposal does not seem to address the fact that there are different quality films or is that the size of the budget? As a result, someone is given the same credit for appearing in a big budget porn film as they are for a home movie. Somehow this does not seem reaasonable. 05:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And how would one determine movie studios who produce quality films? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't have a good answer, but the question came out of an AfD where the budget the studio uses was raised and apparently matters. The point here is that all movies are not created equal. So should the actors receive equal credit in any proposed guideline? Vegaswikian 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a little weird. We wouldn't apply budget standards to non-porn films, after all. For instance, Plan 9 from Outer Space and Waterworld and Clerks. and Spider-Man (to name some unsuccessful and successful low- and high-budget films) are all notable, as are the actors in them. I think both budget and commercial success are probably unrelated to notability. --FOo 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why treat porn films differently? This seems to be unreasonable. We are saying that if you appear in a main stream film that costs a fraction of what it does to produce a porn film you are notable and the porn film is not. Vegaswikian 02:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You see my point. :) --FOo 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You and I agree but this is exactly what the proposal is tying to implement with a fixed number of films in the criteria. I think this is a strong reason to drop the number of films as a criteria. Vegaswikian 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Plan 9's fame is a quirk - it is infamous more than it is famous. It seems to me that we most certainly do discriminate against films based on budget. Would every tiny budget B-movie that showed on a movie screen at some point in the 1950s or 60s be considered notable? Would an actor who appeared in one such film? Some such films are perhaps notable for their appearance on MST3K, or what not, but is Diane Mahree really notable for appearing in "Manos" The Hands of Fate? Wikipedia is not the Internet Movie Database. Obviously, budget should not be the only consideration of notability, but I think that it can provide on criterion - if a movie has a budget of a certain amount, or is released by a major studio, it has proven its notability. Movies released independently on tiny budgets have to meet some other criteria of notability. I don't see why porn should be any different (if anything, the standards should be higher, given the sheer quantity of porn that gets made). john k 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Change to 100+

I have changed the wording to 100 or more movies per the discussion above and the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Loren. Eluchil404 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia policy to ban articles about gay porn stars?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Torres (porn star), the article was nominated 1 hour and 12 minutes after it was created because the performer had only 13 films credited, on the basis of these proposals. 13 films, as several of us have pointed out above, is not a bad output for a gay porn star. 100 films, on the other hand, is a test met by only one (maybe two) gay porn stars. While I understand that, in principle, there are other tests that may qualify a gay porn star, the reality is that some editors are going to use the 100 films test to try to AfD every gay porn star article.

I have raised this point several times before, but I have not had much response. So I'm going to push the issue before the AfD thing catches fire. Here is my proposal:

• gay porn stars who have made 10 films will be considered to meet the test.

Comments? If none, I'll make this change in a week's time. Thanks. Zeromacnoo 11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems awfully low. Remember, the idea is that the common ordinary porn-actor-about-town shouldn't' qualify for the encyclopedia. It should be high enough that making so many films should be enough to make the star widely recognized within the industry. There are non-porn stars that made 10 mainstream films that aren't widely recognized within their industry. Maybe 100 is too high, since gay porn is a niche genre, but I seriously doubt 10 is high enough.

Can you point to a source that lists gay porn stars, like the IAFD or AFDB does for straight porn stars? If over a few percent qualify, our bar is too low. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, 'Remember, the idea is that the common ordinary porn-actor-about-town shouldn't' qualify for the encyclopedia.' was a consideration for some, but that would be hard to prove. No matter, the result is that having a number keeps these actors out. That sure sounds like we want the standard so high so that very few actors qualify. The fact that attemps to lower this have been stongly opposed leaves some wondering if there is a place for consensus. I have always said that a fixed number is a bad way to go since it causes too many problems as I learned from the school proposal that failed to gain consensus. I would object to changing this to a criteria by genere since that is also unwise. Why not simply drop the number and replace it with a more appropiate criteria? Too many poeople are focused on the number and consider that the only criteria that needs to be missed for getting a delete on AfD. The other criteria seem to be skipped over in those discussions, it is becoming a number game over there and that is just simply bad for the encylopedia. dding levels will not help at Afd! Vegaswikian 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that as long as there is a number that is perceived as applying to all porn, anyone who is completely ignorant of the gay porn film industry can start AfDs for every article on gay porn stars in Wikipedia. There are articles that don't qualify and are recognized as such; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Becker is a great example. I suspect that the lack of response there is a tacit approval by those who are too busy defending worthy articles—and trying to do other things here than that alone—to take the time to respond.—Chidom ^talk  20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Remember, the idea is that the common ordinary porn-actor-about-town shouldn't qualify for the encyclopedia." I don't agree with this. If there are people interessted enough to write about a porn star, there are likely people interested in reading about him or her. Why shouldn't the article exist? Wikipedia is not paper, and articles about porn stars are not a random collection of facts. I agree that an article that does nothing more than list a porn star's films shouldn't be here. An article that provides information about where he/she was born/grew up, how he/she got into the business, what sort of films he/she has done, etc., is of interest, and therefore is worth keeping. Zeromacnoo 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're fighting an overly specific fight, then. This is, after all, Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), just a subset and special case of Wikipedia:Notability (people) (or WP:PORN BIO ... WP:BIO). The whole point of Wikipedia:Notability (people) is that there are criteria that establish importance, and biographies that don't meet those criteria don't belong, and most people's bigraphies don't meet that criteria. If your general point is that any article about a person that anyone is interested in writing should be kept, because someone else will likely be interested in reading it, then your argument isn't with the specific 100 films criteria, it's with the general concept of Wikipedia:Notability (people), and should be argued there.

The specific concept of Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) is that not all pornographic actors should have articles. What exactly that means can be debated. My personal opinion is that porn stars in general are somewhat more notable than the average person, but not that much; the same could be said of - oh - politicians. Fluffy Cumsalot, minor porn star for three years, will have about as many people wanting to read information about him as Fred Jones, town councilman for one term: a few thousand. In my humble opinion, that's just not enough. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BIO is not a policy. It is a guideline. WP:BIO specificly says:

"This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious).... Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included. Many Wikipedians oppose the use of this guideline."

Yes, lots of editors swear by it, but it has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community, so it should not be wielded about as something to live by or die by. Once again we seem to be divided between those who want Wikipedia to be smaller, and those who see Wikipedia as something that can provide information about a far wider range of human endeavour and the natural world that a paper encyclopedia ever could. What "notability" and "importance" come down to is a personal opinion of editors about who is notable/important and who is not. The problem that I have with that is that the notion of notability/importance leads to the deletion of material of interest to smaller groups, in favour of material of interest to larger groups. Notability/importance is the enemy of diversity. We should stick with verifiability and neutrality as our yardsticks. Zeromacnoo 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• It has not been accepted as policy byt the community, but it has wide acceptance as a guideline. Important distinction. I am all for verifiability, though - I would suggest that any porn article not backed by multiple non-trivial articles in reliable secondary sources should be nuked on sight. IADB is not a reliable source, obviously. Just zis Guy you know? 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gay stats vs. Straight stats

There has been much talk lately about what number of films a gay performer needs to have been in to achieve notariety. I've done research on three studios—one major and two "niche"—for the year 2004, and come up with some pretty interesting stats. The major studio I chose is actually three studios under one family, Falcon Studios, which also publishes under the Jocks Studios, and Mustang Studios. (They also publish under the Falcon International Collection and Falcon Anthology Series brands, but there was no output at all for them for the target year). Falcon is probably the best-known brand in gay pornography; roughly the equivalent of Vivid Video in the straight porn industry. The two "niche" studios I picked were Raging Stallion Studios and Big City Video. Raging Stallion produces films with blue-collar, ethnic, and fetish performers; Big City focuses primarily on the Black and Latino market.

For 2004, Falcon Studios released 8 films under its own brand, 2 under the Jocks brand, and 1 under the Mustang brand, for a total of 11 films for the year. I was surpised to find that both Raging Stallion Studios and Big City Video released more videos in 2004 than all the Falcon Studios combined; Raging Stallions Studios released 14 films and Big City Video released 18. Vivid Video, the leader in straight porn industry, brandchannel March 1, 2004, produces 60 films per year. Forbes Magazine, March 7, 2005.

That's three to six times the output of a major gay studio. If you want to use 100 as a benchmark, divide it by six and you get 16.6. Now factor in the fact that there are fewer major gay studios for gay performers to work for than there are straight ones, and 10 videos starts to make a lot of sense as a benchmark for gay films.—Chidom ^talk  22:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a better idea: up the number to 1000 for straight performers :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Soft dispute of criterion #5

This is half-semantic, but "Performer has been successful in crossing over into other fields, such as mainstream acting or writing, per WP:BIO" does not make someone a notable pornographic actor. It maks them a notable actor, writer, etc. I'd argue that if, say, Jerry Seinfeld had a little-known porn career before hitting it big, he still should fail WP:PORN BIO, though he'd obviously sail through WP:BIO just fine. In short, the line is unnecessary. As much as it may seem that fluffing belongs on the porn bio page, policy fluff we can do without. JDoorjam Talk 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone both appeared in "pornography"—Stallone actually performed as the "Italian Stallion" The Party at Kitty and Stud's (IMDB), while Schwarzenegger did nude modeling www.rotten.com, which includes photos)— arguably pornography for some. Neither is nor should be a factor in their inclusion here.—Chidom ^talk  18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to magazines

Can we visit/revisit this? I still don't agree that being a Playmate of the Month (or equivalent) one time should be a sole factor for inclusion. The person needs to be more well-known than that.—Chidom ^talk  18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't new playgirls not normally playmate of the month the first time they appear, wouldnt that mean they have appeared more then once? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

More recommendations re criteria

1. One factor which we may want to consider as a sign of notability is whether the performer appears in films/videos which are named after himself/herself. Example: Ginger Lynn's credits include I Dream of Ginger, Blame It on Ginger, and Club Ginger. [1] Ron Jeremy was in Ron Jeremy on the Loose: Atlantic City. [2] Jenna Jameson starred in Jenna Loves Rocco and Brianna Loves Jenna. [3] If a performer's films are named after him or her, that suggests that the performer is a celebrity within the porn world.
2. The issue of whether being a Playboy Playmate should be a notability criterion under WP:PORN BIO does not seem that important since the Playmates generally are considered to qualify under WP:BIO anyway. Many of them have articles and I don't recall them being submitted to Articles for Deletion.
3. This is not a notability criterion per se, but if a porn actress's bio has little more content than saying that her films feature straight sex, anal sex, and lesbian sex, that seems run-of-the-mill in the context of porn. See Tanya James (AfD) for an example. It would be like if we started writing articles about basketball players like this:

John Doe (born August 10, 1983) is an American basketball player. He is known for running, passing, and shooting. --75.2.64.208 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Under what part of WP:BIO would a Playmate qualify? Just because none of the articles are being submitted for AfDs doesn't make them notable.—Chidom ^talk  22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Widely recognized entertainment personalities" and "enduring historical record in their specific field". More people will recognize a Playmate than all but the top porn stars, and more people compile lists of Playmates dating back to the first issue of the magazine, than compile lists of porn movie award winners. (In fact, the official XRCO awards site is desperately searching for anyone with a complete list of its own awards!) When I corresponded with Richard Pacheco (see the talk page), he gave the impression he was unaware of the New York Critics Adult Film awards until he had won them, and even after he was vague about who exactly the Critics were, but he was quite sure about which month and year he was the Playgirl centerfold. However, I think that we should keep the criterion, since there are a notable nuber of porn star Playmates, more than Playmates in any other profession. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a possible flaw, then, in WP:BIO. While a Playmate may be widely recognized and have an enduring historical record, if they had their pictures in a magazine one time and never appeared anywhere else, that doesn't strike me as notable. However, I also note that there's a whole article devoted to Columbia, Virginia, a town of exactly 49 people, so I guess being a Playmate or Playguy qualifies....—Chidom ^talk  00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (with tongue firmly in cheek!)