Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nominations & Notability

Here's a question for the group. An actress (or actor) is notable if they've won an award from one of the main X-rated organizations (e.g., AVN Magazine or XRCO). I'm currently in the process of sloooowly (<g>) adding in the nominations to the lists for the various AVN award years and that got me to thinking... what about if someone is only nominated but doesn't win? In other words, if she's a porn version of Susan Lucci? My early thoughts are this:

• A lone nomination by itself is not enough. A single nomination might be sufficient for an article to be created if they're up for an Oscar or Emmy (which have a broader base of competition and visibility), but not for pornography. Reason for this is as User:Geogre said in a AFD discussion: "Porn actresses have professional lifespans of a mayfly: they get enormous fame, huge numbers of appearances, and then disappear utterly in the course of 18 months." We need to filter out those flash-in-the-pans.
• Multiple nominations in a given year shouldn't qualify, even if from more than one award-giving organization. Same reasoning as in the earlier point.
• Only if the person receives nominations in at least three different years should they qualify as being notable. Two years is insufficient as it can be possible for someone to start towards the end of one nominating period, work through the start of a second then disappear. Three years indicates some longevity.

Thoughts from the peanut gallery? Tabercil 16:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind something like this, as so long as it indicates longevity. Nominations occuring three or more years would definitely indicate longevity, thus separating the "Susan Luccis" of porn from the "flash-in-the-pans". -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the nomination/award process for straight porn; I do know that what sometimes occurrs in the gay porn industry is that a newcomer will be nominated for an award one year and not win, and then another newcomer comes along by the next year and the previous year's nominee isn't nominated for anything. In the meantime, the previous year's nominee has gone on and made several films (most likely in supporting or co-starring roles), is still quite active in the industry, and is building a body of work. I'm not sure this changes the 3-year standard you're proposing, I'm just bringing it up in case others have thoughts on how to handle this sort of situation, as well.—Chidom ^talk  00:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do "We need to filter out those flash-in-the-pans"? Wikipedia is *there* to provide info on obscure topics. And providing they were at least relatively famous at one point, their longevity is really irrelevant. I would hate to think one-hit wonder music groups wouldn't get articles! Stevage 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information... Once-hit wonders, like Right Said Fred, are still known. A "flash-in-the-pan" porn star is extremely obscure, unless they've made some sort of mark on pornography that makes them noteworthy. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 21:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I guarantee you that many a porn star whose article has been deleted as "non-notable" is in fact more well-known than Right Said Fred. Only on Wikipedia can a person who has made dozens of worldwide-distributed films that have been seen by literally millions of people be considered "not notable". wikipediatrix 04:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • If somebody has had 'enourmous fame', he/she should qualify, even if she is not actively famous after a time anymore. MadMaxDog 09:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of films as a criterion

What is the reason for having an arbitrary number of films be sufficient for notability? Why not 200? Why have it at all? —Centrx→talk • 18:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Read the earlier comments on the page. It's been hashed around a number of times. Personally, I feel that by having at least some number as a mark for notability, it helps cut out the flash-in-the-pans and those actresses who only make one or two films. Note that people like Paris Hilton, John Wayne Bobbitt and Chyna, who have appeared in only 1 film each, will be caught by the mainstream notability criteria. Tabercil 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should anyone be included based on the number of films they are in? If they don't meet some other better criteria, there aren't going to be any reliable sources on them. If they meet some other better critieria such that there are reliable sources on them, then it doesn't matter how many films they've been in. I question why any number at all should a criterion, save something that would make them truly unusual for being prolific, like 1000. —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Compare Wikipediatrix's comments, above, who has the exact opposite view. The basic idea is that a widely viewed performer is notable just as a widely read author is notable. Just how widely viewed someone has to be for that is debatable, but 100 popularly released films indicates at least tens of thousands of viewers... or even, as Wikipediatrix writes, millions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal does not say the films have to be widely viewed, only that there must exist 100; many authors who have written several books, which sometimes take years to write, do not warrant articles on Wikipedia. Anyway, a closer analogy would be newspaper writers: it takes them only days or less to write an article and they are published and read even if they are subpar. —Centrx→talk • 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, the widely read author is much more likely to have multiple independent sources that have written about him, which is the more relevant criterion. None of these porn star articles are sourced, the question is are there even reliable sources to source them with? (Some of them even have junk like "IMDB says she was born in 1974, while the AVN says she was born in 1973") —Centrx→talk • 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There's part of the problem that the authors of WP:PORNBIO don't get: there exist thousands of failed books that have been read by virtually no one, but even a "failed" porn video ends up being seen by large quantities of people. It's the nature of the beast. And it's also the nature of the beast that even obscure porn films are viewed by more people than, say, mainstream flops like Basic Instinct 2, but there's not as much of an accompanying paper trail to show it, because mainstream magazines choose not to cover porn films. It's a frustrating Catch-22. wikipediatrix 02:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but what is the basis for this statement? "Basic Instinct 2" - to continue your example - made close to 6,000,000 dollars just domestically, and was indeed considered a flop. Nonetheless, at $10 per ticket (which is probably over the average), that's still almost 600,000 that saw the movie (I can't imagine there were a statistically significant number of repeat viewings). I find it difficult to believe that anything approaching that number sees most adult movies, much less "flops." Luke Ford estimates that the average adult title ships only about 1000 units (a figure supported by Dan Ackman of Forbes magazine - same page). Mind you, I am of the opinion that the distinction made between "mainstream" performers and "adult movie" performers when determining notability are ridiculous. Nonetheless, this statement appears flawed, or at least unsupported. LWSchurtz 20:19 17 Oct 2006 (CST)

One hundred films

• Performer has been in 100 or more movies (resource: iafd.com). Note: this criterion has been accepted for performers in heterosexual pornography only. Discussion is underway about an appropriate test for homosexual pornography.

Please allow me to voice my objection to this arbitrary criteria. This has been used to discriminate against not only non-heterosexual entertainers, but non-American ones as well. I feel that this line item should be removed entirely. Yamaguchi先生 22:23, 29 September 2006

I too feel that this is a totally bogus criteria. The number gives the appearance of having been selected to keep most actors excluded from using this criteria for inclusion. I believe that a better criteria for staying power is length of time in the business. A couple of active years would be far better and eliminate the concerns with other countries or specific genre films. Vegaswikian 23:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I know there is another problem with the number of films criteria, is that it also is biased towards the current porn film generation, where you have hundreds of films being produced each month. Compare this to the situation back in the 70s and 80s where the number of films was much less. For instance, Ginger Lynn was arguably the biggest name in porn during the early 80s, and IAFD shows that she appeared in 221 films. Yet if you pull out all the compilations, and just look at her peak years of activity (84 to 86) she was in only 78 original films. Today's actresses can appear in that many films in one year easily.

However, having said that I do feel we need some form of bar for which to trim out non-notables, otherwise I fear we'll end up being swamped with performers. The IAFD page as of 7:40pm EST today says it covers 38,238 performers, and I shudder to think of seeing that many entries getting added to Wikipedia. Tabercil 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We have enough factors to judge notability by, but this particular criterion is arbitrary and unhelpful. Yamaguchi先生 00:06, 30 September 2006

The number of films is in an 'or' relationship with the others, so it doesn't trim anything, it only expands the number of persons that satisfy this page. —Centrx→talk • 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to cause more heat than light. Moved to the "dubious" section, with explanation. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that such an arbitrary test shows notability. A porn film producer couldtake a filmed weekend session of cavorting and cut sequences into 100 films if that's what it took to be able to have a Wikipedia article to promote his product. This seems like an easy route to notability, to avoid having to get multiple coverage in reliable and independent sources. A guideline like this cannot be a way to sneak an article in for promotional purposes. Inkpaduta 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guideline status

This has been in limbo too long. Either it needs to get smartened up and trotted out or it needs to be marked "historical" or somesuch. - brenneman ^{L} 10:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• A joke: A nuclear physicist walks into a bar, looking dejected. The bartender asks him what's wrong. "They deleted my wikipedia article. They said my contibutions to the field of nuclear physics weren't important enough!" The bartender replies, "It's a shame you got into that industry. If you'd have been willing to suck a horse's cock on camera for money, you'd have an article for sure!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• But seriously... I agree that this has sat around long enough. It should be redirected to WP:BIO. I think it's absolutely ludicrous that an encylopedia should have one set of guidelines for every type of person on earth, and a second, less-restrictive set of guidelines for porn. The very idea of it is silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• WP:PROF has sat around even longer. Personally, I would prefer to mark it a guideline. It has been around a long time, and has been successfully used in many AFDs. The main objections have been to the "100 film" rule, and the motion to strike that seems reasonable. After we move it to the "not sufficient for notability" section, I think we can get a rough consensus to accept the guideline.

Note that this is not less restrictive than WP:BIO, just like WP:PROF is not less restrictive; it mainly lists specific professional characteristics that make for notability for our purposes. WP:PROF mentions that most professors publish regularly, and it's not enough for notability, however having notable students is; WP:PORNBIO will mention that most pornstars have many films and internet image galleries, and it's not enough for notability, however the following awards are. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I'd rather move the 100 film rule to the "dubious methods" section rather than the "not sufficient" one, which would better reflect how it seems to be viewed by people approaching it from angles other than current day porn (e.g., European & Japanese porn, gay porn, golden-age porn, etc.). Something like: "The hundred-film rule of thumb is best used to evaluate current films being produced for the mainstream heterosexual pornography business in North America. It is inappropriate to use in other circumstances." Thoughts?? Tabercil 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No it's not good for those films either. —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree 100% with Andrew Lenahan. Replace this with a redirect to WP:BIO. There should not be an easy route to having an article specially for porn performers. Inkpaduta 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

General principles

Why is this listed in notability.. this topic isn't notable! --froth^{T C} 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What we should have is just a listing of the different kinds of awards or levels of scholarly research or whatever for the different kinds of persons. We should not have a separate subpage for each. If the same principle as these proposals is followed, we will have dozens of Notability subguidelines just for different kinds of persons. —Centrx→talk • 01:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

For example, the web content guideline names a few of the awards, but refers to a category. - brenneman ^{L} 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Porn Stars versus "Mainstream" Stars

The entire question seems odd in light of the not-at-all small number of "mainstream" entertainers who would utterly fail to merit an article on any similar set of criterea, yet have one nonetheless - see Kelly Vitz, to take only one example. Why are we even concerned about whether a porn star has become "notable" before he or she is allowed a bio on Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a "reference for the masses?" If I wanted to know about only notable porn stars, I could go to other sources. It is the user-created aspect of Wikipedia that allows for the possibility of finding an article on an otherwise relatively non-notable entertainer - mainstream or otherwise. When I wanted to know something about a minor supporting actress in a minor Disney film (i.e.: Kelly Vitz), I turned to Wikipedia in the hopes that the open format would allow at least the possibility that someone might have posted some information about her. Indeed - my faith was rewarded. But when I consulted Wikipedia for information on the minor porn star "Allie Sin" (aka "Naughty Nati" and others), I find that she had a page, but it was deleted. Could it be reasonably claimed that she is somehow less relevant in her profession than Kelly Vitz is in hers? Should that even be an issue of concern? Doesn't Wikipedia exist, at least in part, to "fill in the gaps" left by more "official" sources, who are more concerned about including only those who are "notable" in their fields? Far from quibbling about the specifics of the "notability" guidelines, I question why it is that such a limit is set on biographical entries for adult entertainment performers and not for mainstream performers as well. LWSchurtz 17:04 16 Oct 2006 (CST)

• Basically, you're talking about the ol' notability debate. I won't rehash the whole thing here, but the gist of it is that the further away a subject is from being notable, the less likely it is that we'll be able to find sources for the article, and the less likely any sources we do find will be what we consider reliable. As for your second point, however, about having two seperate (and not necessarily equal) sets of standards for porn people and everyone else, I agree completely. Porn people should face up to the same set of standards as anyone else (WP:BIO), and vice versa. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And that was in fact my main point, although you do bring up a valid concern. Whereas Kelly Vitz may indeed be more minor relative to mainstream film than Allie Sin is relative to the porn world, it remains a plausible objection that we may be more likely to have reliable sources of information about Kelly Vitz than about Allie Sin. This is due not only to the custom of pseudonyms for porn performers, but also because the social fact of the matter is that there will be more "reliable" (i.e.: mainstream) documentary information about an exceptionally minor mainstream performer than about a porn performer with ten or twenty times as many film appearances. Still, to emphasize my (our) point here; if it were the case that we could find a source that would be considered reliable enough (such as information from a company that she made a film with, or information from a porn-world magazine, but not, say, her putative MySpace page), I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to have an article on Allie Sin, even if it has no more information than that sparse amount found in Kelly Vitz's entry. As long as the sources are credible, there is no reason someone who wasn't wearing clothes in her films should be held to a higher standard for deserving an entry than someone who was wearing clothes in hers. LWSchurtz 02:21 17 Oct 2006 (CST)
    
    • No, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "reference for the masses" in which non-notable performers or companies advertise their wares and link to their commercial websites, when they cannot get several articles in the mainstream press. Inkpaduta 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Is it justified that there are around 600 porn star articles on Wikipedia and around 950 field hockey player articles. Is field hockey more popular, famous and notable worldwide than pornography? Epbr123 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ready to become a notability criteria guideline

I believe this proposed guideline is ready to be tagged as a full Wikipedia:Notability criteria guideline.

Reasons for this include:

• Because it's used. Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced demonstrates that since the date this guideline was proposed, roughly 5 months ago, it has been referenced in over 120 individual Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussions, and in 87 different days of AfD - that's more than every other day. There has never been a single week of AfDs when this proposed guideline wasn't referenced.
• Because it reflects current community consensus and behavior at AfD. Over the 5 months, in response to active discussion here (see over 100KB of discussion at the talk page archives), and at the AfDs themselves, several new criteria have been added, such as
  • the "multiple notable mainstream media appearances" which was made to reflect the Air Force Amy decision,
  • the "prolific within genre niche" rule, which was made to reflect the Via Paxton decision
  • the multiple gay pornography awards, added by User:Chidom, which have since resolved many gay porn AfDs (both to delete and to keep).
  • the most contentious criterion, the "100 films" rule, has finally been moved to the "dubious" section.
• Because we need it, to shorten the discussion that tends to crop up otherwise. Pornography is an inherently controversial issue, arguments about it will be heated, an accepted consensus guideline that makes AfD arguments productive by giving something to actually refer to is very useful. "More light, less heat." Before this guideline, common porn star AfD arguments included
  • "Keep certainly passes google test [1] and seems like she's fairly notable in certain circles... Think would count as a notable porn star... though not sure what the guidelines on those are."
  • "Being on IMDB makes her notable"
  • "I watch A LOT of porn and I have never heard of her. I haven't heard of her, she ain't notable."
  • "I'm concerned that this debate is becoming a debate on the merits of porn stars (on wikipedia) in general."
  • "For the reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flick Shagwell"

In becoming a notability criterion subset of Wikipedia:Notability (people) (usually called WP:BIO), it will join the accepted Wikipedia:Notability (music), which provides specific guidelines for musicians, and the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (usually called WP:PROF), Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, and Wikipedia:Notability (royalty). This guideline will list extensions of WP:BIO that will be especially suitable or not suitable for porn performers, and will tend not to come up in other biographies. It is not an exception to WP:BIO, just a clarification. Just as WP:PROF writes that having many publications is standard and not exceptional for academics, WP:PORNBIO writes that having many films and Google hits is standard and not exceptional for porn stars. Just as WP:MUSIC lists "international tour" and "charted hit" as points that generally show notability for musicians, so this guideline lists specific awards that do show notability for porn stars. These are issues that don't come up nearly as often for most other biographies, so it makes sense to put them in a special section like this one.

In asking for discussion on this, I'm also trying to follow the advice of respected admins User:Radiant! and User:Aaron Brenneman who strongly urge that the proposed status of this guideline be resolved one way or the other. I would also like to follow the lead of Radiant! in marking the main Wikipedia:Notability page as a guideline, despite much opposition, due to its being actually used. I believe that due to the reasons listed above, it's time to mark this as a guideline.

Now I'm going off to "advertise" this discussion on the Village Pump and other relevant places. As with anything connected to Wikipedia Notability and Pornography, the ensuing discussion is probably going to be controversial. Let's try to keep it from becoming heated, and instead keep it productive. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think its about time we recognize this for what it is, a guideline, people use it as such and there is no harm now in tagging it as such. --NuclearZer0 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Useful guideline. However I'm a bit unsatisfied with criterion 2 which is sort of American-centric and would rather see it removed entirely. I fail to see how being a Playboy playmate is in itself establishing notability. Pascal.Tesson 16:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  There's a bit of discussion on that in the Archive; most importantly, historically in AfDs, being a playmate has been considered sufficient to keep. See Category:Playboy Playmates, pick any one, and click on the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" links in the infobox. I believe we have a complete set. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, holding my nose I think there is consensus, although I am one of those that would generally prefer us to lack articles on most of the subjects that this will pass. (Recognizing consensus includes those who disagree but don't object as people that accept the consensus.) In addition to the evidence mentioned above, it also gets used in deletion review discussions, but the closure method on deletion reviews mean that the evidence is not available via What ;inks here. GRBerry 17:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Nuclear's comments. Tabercil 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support A wonderful guideline that has surpassed even my expectations. Well done, everyone, well done. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 18:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support and mirror Nuclear's thoughts. Olessi 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Closing

As mentioned above, there is no formal procedure for making a notability criteria guideline, however the above is a pretty clear example of Wikipedia:Consensus, unanimity even. 5 days of discussion have gone by with no arguments in opposition. I'll mark it as a notability guideline. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a guideline yet

Guidelines must have consensus. Six guys can't establish a guidleine. If your Village pump notice was sufficient to start the guideline process, the vast indifference with which it was met the Wikipedia community shows that there was no consensus for it. A guideline proposal must be supported by the community, not ignored by it (outside of its handful of writers). And really, all that tripe about unanimity. You know it's been criticized by users like me in various places -- including on the talk page just before you started the inadequate poll. Take a look at how other guidelines have been created and what kind of support was required for them. Don't try to sleaze this through. VivianDarkbloom 18:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did take a look, you will notice I refer specifically to the fact that there is no procedure for doing this, and to the way Radiant! marked Wikipedia:Notability itself a guideline, which is the most recent, and most relevant one I could find (this is, after all, anotability criteria guideline, not just any kind guideline - it depends directly on Notability). As with Notability, my strongest reason for marking it a guideline isn't six people supporting, but 120+ Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussions citing it, more than one every other day for the last 5 months: see the Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced page. That's pretty strong. Even so, I still made a formal notice and asked for comments, and got unanimity over the course of a week. Frankly, this is a model of guideline making. Please, feel free to place more notices, and try to establish consensus to unmark it - however, until you do, I do believe it should stay marked as such.

More usefully though, can you write exactly what you don't like about the guideline? Just that fact that it exists at all, the way the sausage was made, or something specific in it? If you have a specific objection, it will certainly be noted - as I write above, this guideline is pretty good to responding to good arguments. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What I "don't like," aside from the fake consensus, is that you guys completely ignored what a guideline is supposed to be. A guideline is supposed to describe an existing consensus and reduce it to relatively clear statements. Instead, you guys got together and decided what you thought the standards should be, and kept making them easier and easier to meet. That's a bad stab at the policy process, which has well-defined procedures. Anmd your fake guideline doesn't describe what really happened at AFD. A couple of you guys regularly mentioned WP:PORN BIO in the discussions. The rest of the WIkipedia world ignored it. One of your guys even put the link in his signature, so a good chunk of those "references" are astroturfing. What's an easy way to tell yoou guys just made this stuff up? Playboy and Penthouse don't give out awards to porn. But that's one of your criteria. What's it describing? Nothing, except the fantasy world some of you guys drift off into. I also like the part about "niche" performers who are notable for being "notable." That's real helpful, too. And when pushg came to shove, you guys abandoned your fake guideline in the first AFD discussion where it could have been applied, because you couldn't bear the idea that your favorite dogfucking woman with breast implants wouldn't make it into WIkipedia. If you don't like my bluntness, I'm sorry, but that's too bad. This whole discussion needs more down-to-earth comments and a lot fewer euphemisms. VivianDarkbloom 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no euphemisms, but watch your assertions, please. They're outright wrong. Let me address them in order.

• I am aware that User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. put a link to WP:PORN BIO in his signature, being justly proud of having started it, however I made a serious effort to check that the references I listed in Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced were genuine references. Out of the 87 days of AfD, and 150-odd individual AfD discussions listed there, you won't find 10 there that are "astroturfing", much less than "a good chunk".
• "A couple of you guys regularly mentioned WP:PORN BIO in the discussions." Let's just count the unique ones using it in the first 10 AfDs from Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced.

1. Coredesat Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Angel (2nd nomination)
2. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Angel (2nd nomination)
3. JJay Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa
4. B.Wind Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliyah Likit (second nomination)
5. RJH Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa
6. Sverdrup Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Rain
7. GWO Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber, The Lesbian Queefer
8. Satori Son Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber, The Lesbian Queefer
9. Hong Qi Gong Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Milano
10. BlueValour Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie Courtland
11. Eluchil404 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie Courtland
12. Feydey Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene Aspen
13. AnonEMouse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene Aspen

And that's just analyzing the first 10 AfDs out of over 120. Most of these users didn't even comment in making this a guideline. Want to analyze the next 5 Afds from there for unique users of this guideline?

1. John Lake Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherie (actress)
2. RFerreira Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherie (actress)
3. TBC
4. Voice of Treason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crissy Moran

I'm stopping just because I'm tired of clicking links, but it should be clear it is used by many, many unique users. Look at the next 15, or the next 100.

• "And when pushg came to shove, you guys abandoned your fake guideline in the first AFD discussion where it could have been applied..." I think you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chessie Moore? Look again - over half the discussion is specifically focusing on this guideline, and it is referred to no less than 3 times: by Dhartung, Tabercil (neither of which are in the above unique users list, by the way)... and a certain AnonEMouse.

Your assertions are unfounded, and your continued edit-warring on the guideline page is unacceptable. It should be obvious you are editing both against the evidence and against the majority. If you want to make more arguments, go ahead, that is what the Wikipedia process is all about, discussion. But please don't keep editing the guideline page without providing actual, researched, arguments, and, more importantly, seeing them convince people. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You can't make it a "official guideline" without consensus. At list make a vote. --Haham hanuka 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Some editors, like me, have mentioned it just to make they point that they totally reject it as a guideline. Inkpaduta 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency with WP:BIO

This page seems to greatly expand what is notable for only a very specific class of persons. Why would a regular film actor need to be featured multiple times in a national magazine, but a pornographic actor need never be published in an independent source at all ("unique, noteworthy contributions"?). Whereas WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc. all require multiple non-trivial published works on a person, the criteria here admit persons where all the information we have about them is from their official porn website or the video producer, which even more than in other areas have an incentive to promulgate false information about the person, such as age. Why would it make sense to have separate, relaxed criteria for pornographic actors but not separate criteria for scientists, businessmen, or any of the other many classes of persons? —Centrx→talk • 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is quite consistent with WP:BIO, and not relaxed, just more specific. You are wrong that WP:BIO requires multiple non-trivial published works on a person, that's just the first criterion, and the best known criterion from Wikipedia:Notability; others are explicitly sufficient. WP:MUSIC, which you cite, allows "Has released two or more albums on a major label", and "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." all that says nothing about multiple non-trivial published works about them. WP:PROF, similarly, allows "The person is known for originating an important new concept", which is a fairly close parallel to the "unique, noteworthy contributions" you question. In each case, this is part of WP:BIO's "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." Same for awards, etc. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that multiple non-trivial published works, reliable sources, must at least exist. "Has released albums on a major label" and "is in national rotation" is premised on the idea that there will be several magazine reviews of those albums by virtue of that fact. If it is currently too broad, then it should be reduced too, but that is the idea. Regarding WP:PROF, you should read the rest of the sentence, "known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources". WP:BIO is similar, "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the field". The difference between these other guidelines and WP:PORNBIO is: if a subject meets those guidelines there are almost invariably multiple reliable sources on them; a subject meeting WP:PORNBIO has no such likelihood. Certainly, if a subject does not meet the criteria here, it is highly unlikely to have reliable sources, but that means it is a negative criteria, and that is how it is usually used on AfD. —Centrx→talk • 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, porn articles can be deleted even if they meet these conditions if they don't meet WP:V since WP:V is non-negotiable. However, given that, it isn't completely clear to me what this guideline does. JoshuaZ 03:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, and one of the main purposes of a notability guideline is to gauge whether an article will be able to meet high standards of verifiability, even if it does not presently have highly reliable sources cited. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ: what this guideline does is differentiate between notable and non-notable porn stars, which is not immediately obvious. Read the "before this guideline" arguments for deletion; I link to a few of them a few paragraphs up. We had lots of people writing "I get hundreds of Google hits for this person, most with pages and pages of their photos, they must be notable" - and that much would certainly be notable for an eighteenth century poet or a twentieth century agronomist, but for a twenty-first century porn star is par for the course, nothing interesting or unusual. This guideline lists things that are considered notable, by experts (as much as there in this field).

Back to Centrx, however. Any of the "other" criteria imply some "other" kind of nontrivial published works, yes, but not about the them as people. WP:MUSIC "magazine reviews of those albums" will quite often, even usually, have almost no biographical information. "One hit wonders" are notorious in the industry. Reliable, notable reviews of a notable academic theory are even less informative, as it's considered the height of bad taste to write about Professor Doe's age, race, or personal life when you are criticising or lauding her theory. Any the personal information for the articles about those people will be from their personal web sites, for academics usually hosted by their university, for musicians usually by their label (if not MySpace!). That seems a very close parallel to notable porn stars, who will have lots of movie reviews just by dint of having lots of movies, that often won't say much about them personally.

If it were so simple as "multiple ... sources" we wouldn't need WP:MUSIC or even WP:BIO at all, since that the main criteria covered under WP:N. Unfortunately, it is more complicated than that, for musicians, actors, academics, politicians..., and yes, porn stars. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, but what it means is that the relevant articles should be merged. If there are no sources on the band that created the one-hit-wonder (though I do not think it would be uncommon), then there should not be separate article on the band; it belongs with the article on the song and the history associated with the song. Academics may be a better example because there aren't many magazines doing human interest stories on the "band behind the music". —Centrx→talk • 06:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What I personally feel is the most important sections of this page is the non-criteria and the dubious criteria sections, as they explicitly state what cannot be used to determine if a given porn star is notable or non-notable. To paraphrase what AnonEMouse says, you'd have people otherwise arguing that "Janey Jill Doehumper has 1.4 million Google hits and has an entry in the IAFD, so she must be notable"... when the reality could be that Janey Jill's IAFD listing could consist of just 3 movies (which she filmed over a long weekend 4 years ago where she needed cash for that trip to Lake Havasu) and the Google hits are the result of her name being referenced in every porn site in existance trying to push their URL onto Google's results list.

But let's change the topic around slightly... Centrx, your argument is that WP:PORNBIO is looser than WP:BIO. I think our collective intent is not to be looser but to be equal to or stricter than WP:BIO for this little corner of the universe - so how do you feel this page should be changed so it is that way? Tabercil 14:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Magazine covers/appearances

There were discussions in Archive 1 regarding Magazine covers and Magazine appearances which I think we need to clarify. Please see Mark Dalton (porn star). I can't say that he was the centerfold of all the magazines for which he was the cover model, but he hit most of the main gay ones and was a "Man of the Year" for a major magazine. While the "Man of the Year" is probably enough to warrant including his article, discussion regarding magazines occurred at a Deletion Review; the rewritten article is now listed as an AfD.

My feeling is that magazine cover models probably fall under criterion 2 ("Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month)" if they have multiple appearances on a single publication's cover or appearances on several publication covers; however, that isn't specifically addressed in the criteria. The topic of DVD covers was also discussed, and seems to have been discarded as a criterion since "someone has to be on the cover". Thoughts?—Chidom ^talk  04:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you: this issue must be addressed. Well, while "someone has to be on the cover" for magazines as well, I believe that someone who has been on multiple magazine covers does carry a bit more weight than someone on a DVD box sleeve.

Having said that, I'll be frank in stating that I feel leery about comparing multiple appearances on magazine covers to criterion number 2. Being a Playboy Playmate is not the same as being featured on a magazine cover multiple times; there's much more to being a Playmate than there is to, say, Jane XXX being featured on the 5 covers of Hustler.

If we are to create a criterion that establishes magazine cover models as worthy of inclusion, I believe that such a criterion should have the following caveats:

1. Performer's cover appearance is noteworthy from the news standpoint.
2. Performer's cover appearance has garnered awards from a valid source.
3. Performer is a well known cover model and has made a career out of it, worthy of note.

Obviously, what constitutes as a valid source, news worthy item, and other defining attributes should be hashed out here as well, and taken from AfD discussions on similar or like models. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 16:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-titled films

Could having an original film (not a compilation) named after a performer be added as a criterion? Examples: Desireé Cousteau, Inside Desireé Cousteau and Mark Dalton (porn star), Mark Dalton and Friends. —Chidom ^talk  04:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good idea. Should be added. --Haham hanuka 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Haham hanuka 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this proves anything about notability. A low budget limited distribution porn video can be called anything, since it is unlikely to have much of a plot. If naming it after the performer helps it to get an article and free advertising in Wikipedia, they will name it after the performer. It sounds like a gimmick to allow bypassing the normal notability criteria. Inkpaduta 14:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

External links to film reviews

I've noticed some articles lately where there are several links to film reviews in the "External links" section. I'm not sure what the threshhold is here before this starts looking like product promotion, or if there should be any such links at all. (I see one article with 10 films in its videography and reviews for 8 of them listed.) Should there be any? Two or three? One? Two with different opinions on the same film? (Reviewer A loved it; Reviewer B got out the room deodorizer after turning off the TV)? At the risk of starting a(nother) "numbers war", any ideas?—Chidom ^talk  15:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Are the links to film reviews on articles pertaining to the film, or on the page of the performer who performed in the movie? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The links are to articles on the film, not on the performers' websites. Those links I would readily delete; my real concern was the number of links to articles not on those sites. Eight seems excessive to me. (So much for any reputation as an inclusionist I may have garnered.)

However, I just reviewed a sample of the "reviews" and find that this one is little more than a film synopsis with a "Highly, Highly Recommended" rating at the beginning of the article, and this one isn't much better, although there is a bit more commentary about the reviewer's reaction to the scenes in the film. I also checked out an AVN Review; there is a bit more thoughtful commentary, but a film synopsis is definitely part of the deal.

This raises yet another issue: what "standard" (if any) should be applied to so-called "reviews" of porn films?

Sorry to raise more questions.—Chidom ^talk  19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You can keep your shiny inclusionist badge, that mainly applies to keeping WP articles, not external links from WP articles. :-) WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Look at m:External links, which isn't as official as Wikipedia:External links, but is more concise. I would recommend linking to a few (say 2-3) of the most thorough and/or influential reviews from the film article. Is there such a thing as a Roger Ebert of gay porn reviews? :-) Beyond that, if the remaining reviews don't provide anything extra, don't link to them. Note, however, that this is when there are many reasonably professional reviews to choose from. If there only are a few, then some is better than none. If the only reviews are on non-notable fan pages, then I'd say we are probably better off without them at all. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dang. I had a long, drawn-out response ready and just now realized that I may have misinterpreted Joe's question and thus given an incorrect answer. I somehow read your question as being about where the reviews were located—meaning were they on the performer's website.

The links to film reviews I'm referring to appear on the article page for a performer, so the links to the film reviews link from a performer's article; the reviews are of films the performer was in. If that means the links are altogether inappropriate, I'd be more than happy with that judgment call, trust me.

Since I'm fond of them, here's the long, drawn-out response I prepared:

No one's bothered to give me a badge, shiny or otherwise, and I find I'm slowly but surely finding more reasons to delete content than to keep it, so I'm not sure I'd qualify for one in any case. I'm actually leaning toward not including links to these "reviews" at all. (No, there's no Ebert for gay porn, but maybe if we asked him....?)

I guess my whole sticking point here is trying to determine why there should be links. I can come up with plenty of reasons not to have them. The reviews are only marginally reviews to start with. Given that the article is about the performer, not the film, I think links should only be to sites (of any kind, not just reviews) that provide substantial commentary on, or evaulation of, the article's subject, whether that be their performance in a film or some other topic.

As for Wikipedia:External links, there are a few things listed there that could help, I think:

• "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

So I would probably disagree that "some is better than none". Maybe a maximum of two reviews for each of two films or a total of four links altogether (not including those appearing in a References section that have been used as sources for information in the article). This would enable two reviews with opposing viewpoints for each of two films or four reviews about four different films—whichever is more desirable/available, or two reviews and two interviews, and so on.

• "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."

While this says "try", I can see the point. In the absence of a linking page; would it be incorrect to follow the first link listed with information about accessing other relevant pages at the same site? Something along the lines of

• Humping Dumpty film review at www.weknowitall.com. (Search for 'Porn god' at the site for additional reviews of Porn God films.)

• [What should be linked to] "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
• [Links to be considered] "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews."

My main arguments for tossing out the links altogether, however, comes from

• [What to link to]: "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?"

Links to reviews of this sort, in my opinion, often fail to be tasteful (given the subject matter, that may be unavoidable to a certain extent), and I'm not sure whether the information they provide is actually useful. Since reviews are, in essence, opinions, "factual" may not apply.

Lastly, the issue that started this whole discussion was the fact that an article has links to "reviews" on eight separate films. One link per film, all but one from the same reviewer. If we could somehow codify the "four links" guideline, I'd be happy to just delete four and leave four, even though I really feel all eight are pretty worthless in terms of content.

Any further info?—Chidom ^talk  23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would err on the side of deletion, to be honest, as there isn't any "professional" porn equivalent of Siskel & Ebert. I honestly do not feel that reviews of movies have any place on articles pertaining to the performer, unless there's a special reason why they should be included. Also, do you have a link to the article in question, so that I can see what you're referring to, so my response could be better informed? Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with opting for deletion; just need edit summary or talk page justification language, maybe "Doesn't add to article, see Wikipedia:External links" ?? Article in question is Erik Rhodes (porn star). Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Necessity?

Hi.

Why is this necessary, anyway? Why aren't the good ol' WP:BIO N guidelines enough? Why do we need to pile on this stuff for porn, anyway? What makes it different from "ordinary" WP:BIO-covered subjects that this stuff needs to be pegged on? Is it because pornography is a controversial topic? 70.101.147.74 07:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not about porn being a controversial topic at all. If you take a look at the infobox on the right side of WP:BIO you'll see that notability guidelines have been or are being refined for more specific categories. In addition to this one for porn performers, there is one being drafted for Royalty and another for Political candidates and elections. It's been recognized over time that some categories may have category-specific criteria that are useful in defining how the members of that category are to be deemed important ("notable") enough to warrant an article here.

I suppose the Reader's Digest Condensed Version is that guidelines are being refined for specific categories as the need arises.

I hope this has helped. If I got it wrong or someone can explain it better, I hope they do!

Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  09:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Chidom pretty much covered it. These guidelines are in support of WP:BIO and endeavor to make it clear what is and isn't encyclopedic for WP's purposes. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 16:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, everyone. I couldn't quite figure this one out, but your answers did help a lot! 170.215.83.4 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Liberty taken

I've taken the liberty of modifying criterion 4 as follows (additions in bold):

"Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through adult film pornography industry news sources or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets."

Which, without all the extraneous formatting (which I find difficult to assimilate at times), reads:

"Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through pornography industry news sources or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets."

These criteria already apply to print pornography (as evidenced by criteria relating to magazines), not just film; consideration also needs to be given to online pornography if these criteria don't apply there currently. (I tend to think it's covered, but we may want to add additional criteria specific to the media.)

By all means, if you have an objection, feel free to revert my edit and discuss it here. (Like you need my permission to do so?) Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I see what you're trying to say and I support the expansion, but I personally feel the revised phrasing is not what it could be. I guess it's just that you have two words in a row ending in "y" which sounds awkward to my ears. What about "new sources specificly covering the pornographic media business" instead of "pornography industry news sources"? Tabercil 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the phrase sounds awkward, I think "pornography industry" is the common usage (List of pornography industry personalities, Google search results). Your suggestion is certainly accurate, but sounds a bit contrived to me. Would "news sources covering pornography", "pornography news sources", or just "industry news sources" work?—Chidom ^talk  19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think your first choice is the best one. Tabercil 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this, by the way. Bear with me here, it's getting more and more necessary to have things spelled out. By "first choice" do you mean "pornography industry" (my original choice) or "news sources covering pornography" (first alternative)?

Ah, clarification!—Chidom ^talk  00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• "News sources covering pornography" Tabercil 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, by the way. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the part about needing MULTIPLE coverage in RELIABLE , VERIFIABLE and INDEPENDENT sources where they are a PRIMARY SUBJECT and it is NONTRIVIAL. There is no way that a single article in a newspaper or a porn magazine can show notability enough to justify an article about anyone. Inkpaduta 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words and the alternative

I've just noticed (sometimes I'm really, really slow) that the first sentence under Valid criteria contains the phrase "erotic actor or actress"; I believe that somewhere along the line the decision was made not to use "erotic" or "adult" as a substitute for "pornography".

However, I don't think the alternative that's been chosen is necessarily correct, either. Using "pornographic actors" describes the person themselves as being pornography (as in pornographic film, pornographic magazine, etc.); perhaps the better terms would be pornography actor/actress (or, my preference, pornography performer, as I have noted before that not all of them can act).

I know this is late in the day, and it might be trivial enough to be ignored. It's just something I just noticed and wanted to point out, so I've done that. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pornographic performer, since this is more encompassing. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with "performer", but I disagree with "pornographic" - the performer isn't pornographic, what's being performed is, thus "pornography performer". Again, this may be way too much trouble to change globally at this point. Moving forward? Dunno.—Chidom ^talk  21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased

{{NPOV}}

This notability standard is only good for North American stars of the English-language porn industry. 70.51.9.22 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. See my comment on Anna Marek below. MadMaxDog 05:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (signature added by Chidom, this comment was made at the same time as the one below.)

– One possible reason for a perception of "bias" is that the majority of English-speaking porn is made in North America; specifically in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. That doesn't show bias for those cities versus Seattle or Denver; significant/important (notable) porn made there would meet these criteria as well.

– The issue with foreign performers isn't about bias, it's about their importance/notability in the English-speaking world—this is the English Wikipedia. If they are important in the English-speaking world, then verifiable sources in English should be available, regardless of whether those sources are from North America or not, or whether the performer is notable in North America or not.

– There are articles here (at least for gay porn) on foreign performers and productions: see Lukas Ridgeston, Pavel Novotný, and Ion Davidov, for example; in addition, see Bel Ami, about a foreign gay film studio that produces English-speaking porn. (What language is spoken in the films may vary, and isn't really important anyway.)

– A performer notable in Australia, for instance, may never have gained importance/significance in North America, but surely there are awards, articles, etc. in Australia to demonstrate their importance there?

– Nowhere does the guideline state that porn has to be notable in North America; the examples given are what the editors are familiar with.

– If there is bias here, I point out that most bias/prejudice stems from ignorance. This is an educational encyclopedia;uf there are specific things that you think need to be changed about the criteria that would be more encompassing of important performers/products of English-speaking porn in other countries, this is the place to propose and discuss those criteria.—Chidom ^talk  18:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the implication that, as this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, the focus should be on english-speaking porn. This makes no sense, as this in an encyclopedia IN English, not about Anglo-centric things. MadMaxDog 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Me, I am German in fact (living in an English-speaking country, though), and I exclusively contribute to the English Wikipedia, even though there is a big German one. Why? Because the idea of ONE repository of as much knowledge as possible appeals to me. MadMaxDog 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I shouldn't have characterized the porn as "English-speaking"; I've made some strikeouts above to hopefully clarify what I was trying to say.

In order for an article to be here, there must be reliable English-language sources available to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. The language used in the porn and its country of origin are both irrelevant as long as there is information published by reliable English-lanaguage sources to establish verifiability and notability.

I hope that makes things clearer. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  07:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries mate, I agree with your clarified statement. And who cares what they say in porn anyway ;-) MadMaxDog 07:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Anna Marek

I'd like to not only point people to the latest deletion of this article, which I feel was a wrong call from an admin (deleting even though keeps outweighed deletes!), but also to a discussion on this whole criteria. When we get comments like 'Famous does not equal notable', like in the discussion on the deletion of Anna Marek, then something is really wrong. MadMaxDog 05:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I take the liberty to post the following, a cut-and-paste from the now deleted Anna Marek discussion page. Hektor 07:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Message from "dirty-dan"

I thought i would make a note here. This is dirty-dan CEO of the company who owns in N. America Anna Marek rights, we are not the same owners who own these videos in other areas of the world.

Anna maybe one of the most famous models of the foundation period of the net. Her bio is both on the Color Climax and our sites. Our 2 companies have a very different relationship with Anna and we certainly have never worked with each other on Bios or any details about Anna. The Bios mirror each other as they are accurate.

Anna has appeared in 4 major films, and in 15 issues of Color Climax Maqazines, and Several other major companies publications. She remains the most popular model of Color Climax of all time and will appear again in another magazine. Anna has been involved in the adult industry from turning 18 till now past her 30s. You can see her age and change on the covers on the annamarek.com site. All her films were done in Dec/Jan areas of 1992. Her first photo shoot is pretty easy to date with forensics as a copy of P.M. magazine can be seen in the bookcase and is the Dec 1992 issue.

I am not sure the debate here, but Anna is even in the IMDB database of actors and something going on here seems pretty shallow that this is occuring when 2 major competitive and unrelated companies along with 2 others in Europe all have the same bio information with no interaction. I think it would be a shame to delete this. The person who wrote this emailed me and said he had been threatened by a member of your group who took offense to Anna and told them some bogus story they heard rumors about her age being younger then 18. More of this hysteria and misconception. I was not impressed at all.... nor am I now impressed with seeing all this... but hey, is your site and you can run it guess any darn way you want and not up to my expectations. The facts are there and can be seen at multiple points ... but seems the people here have some very complex concepts on what they want as proof. Maybe on future model releases we need ask for DNA scans and personal histories to be attached and ask of models to wave all rights to personal privacy to make some at wikipedia happy for total transparency? AMAZING!

Peace, dirty-dan@hornyrob.com

• The discussion regarding the deletion of this article is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Marek ("AfD page").
• A performer's own website is usually a promotional vehicle, not a reliable source of information about that performer; therefore, information there should be verifiable by other non-related, independent sources as well.
• The "bio" referred to above comes from unverifiable sources, as is discussed on the AfD page.
• Threats are not allowed at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks; any such incidents should be reported.
• Likewise, Wikipedia is not censored. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer as well.
• See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information about what Wikipedia's requirements are for "proof".
• Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (porn star), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (porn star) (second nomination), and Mark Dalton (porn star) for an example of other Articles for Deletion discussions and the resultant well-sourced article on a porn performer.
• I'm sure others have examples of articles about straight performers, it's just not my area.—Chidom ^talk  18:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Question on interpretation of the rules

Point #5 on the list of valid criteria for establishing notability states, "Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets (the Air Force Amy rule)." My question: Is a "notable mainstream outlet" to be limited to the traditional print/broadcast media? Or is it to include mainstream digital and video media, such as CDs, DVDs and VHS tapes, available at mainstream outlets, such as Blockbuster, Barnes and Noble and Amazon? Dekkappai 18:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So far it's meant traditional. You can get plenty of non-notable items at a Barnes and Noble physical store, and you can get literally almost anything at online Amazon. Another point is that newspapers and television and radio shows have large regular audiences, who read most or watch or listen to almost all their content, while stores like the ones you mentioned have customers who buy a very small fraction of their content. Appearing in a notable newspaper or program usually implies notice from a lot of people. Appearing on a store shelf doesn't. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, AnonEMouse. The point I was hoping to make is that videos available at these mainstream outlets, as opposed to only an adult-video source, are available to a large, mainstream audience, just as printing in a mainstream newspaper does. People skip through the magazines, newspapers and TV also, they don't look at everything. However, the model's appearance there makes her potentially available to a large, mainstream audience. The same goes for a large, mainstream media outlet like B&N or Amazon. However, a DVD availabile only at an adult-entertainment outlet does limit the potential audience only to those seeking out adult entertainment. Dekkappai 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Under these guidelines nude modeling is not notable

I won't even comment on the "pornographic material by its nature is controversial" mind-set expressed at the top. Under your guidelines an entertainer has to be a star of more than 100 films or appear in one of two magazines of your choosing. It would be funny if you hadn't already elected yourselves as the guideline makers. Explain to me why a nude model that has been online for 3+ years isn't notable. BTW - Tiffany Teen's site was up for 2 years and goes untagged for notability deletion. There's no sense in adding pages for Alison Angel, Next-Door Nikki or many others that have been around for years because they won't meet your criteria. Marketa Belonoha will though, because Playboy called her sexy.Cheapcheap 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Whew. By cross-referencing AFDB and IMDB I notice that Melody Love has over 100 titles to her credit so she won't have to be deleted until you guys really go to town and list the "10 porn stars of all time worth recording in Wikipedia".Cheapcheap 05:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear. Right on. But there's no 'your' guidelines here, CheapCheap. Please participate in future attempts to change them, because I and some others definitely are of similar opinions. MadMaxDog 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheapcheap, you have apparently misread the "100 movie" criteria. The 100 movie criteria is under "dubious methods of establishing notability". Secondly, your sarcasm or abrasive nature will not get you anywhere here -- working to achieve consensus will. You are more than welcome to talk about suggested changes or modifications to this guideline for discussion with other editors. Sarcasm has no part of this vital process. Thirdly, nude modeling isn't exactly under the purview of WP:PORNBIO, although it is under WP:BIO (WP:PORNBIO is merely an extension of WP:BIO focused on pornographic actors). Additionally, please be reminded that Wikipedia is neither an indescriminate source of information nor a database of all persons. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Refering to the dubious nature of the 100 movies criteria - I believe if you read it again you'll notice two things. One, the dubious section is clearly partitioned from the unacceptable section. Two, the section is worded, perhaps unintentionally, to read that over 100 is acceptable and that the dubious nature arises in consideration that some foreign or past stars were notable even though they made less than 100 films. -- Turning to the specific problems of the "accepted test" both number 2 and 6 are poor. Even dubious. How notable is Penthouse's Pet of the month for September 1986? More notable than an actress appearing in 50 titles? And how exactly do we gauge what can be considered notable or prolific within a specific genre niche? By number of titles? -- As to the suggestion that nude modeling doesn't fall within this bracket, that reasoning is faulty. One of the "accepted" criteria under guideline 2 is nude modeling. That's not even taking into consideration the numerous video works that an individual model may offer that exhibit graphic acting. -- Last, just because I disagree with you completely doesn't make me abrasive. It doesn't even make me right. It just makes me a person you can't simply push aside because you believe you are right. Cheapcheap 02:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules 2 and 6, the "playmate" and "genre niche" rules are a result of this being a guideline, rather than a policy. Guidelines are supposed to reflect the way the community actually behaves, rather than some academic reasoning. Several articles were kept specifically because individuals were playmates or notable in genre niches, therefore these were added. You can dig through the archives to see them being added; they've been used multiple times since then, and generally supported. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Criteria seven notability

Being a fresh face to AfD discussions I've noticed quite a few performers barely meet (or not come even close to) the 100 film guideline, but establish notability through having had their name in the title of at least one of their films. In many of these I've also seen that the articles were stub quality at best, featuring marketing descriptions of the films and actors rather than encyclopedic content. From what I've seen of the subject articles that meet other criterion don't show up here and have better citation. These articles also don't get much attention from experienced editors after clearing AfD. That being the case, I think this criteria contributes to not notable performers getting articles that there really isn't much to say about. Often times we hear about their various preferences and performances, but ultimately it's the same thing - they don't even stand out in their field. By definition, again, they are not notable, even if they have a film or two named after them.

I would suggest moving this criteria to the dubious category and weighing them more on their merits rather than automatically assuming they are notable. They might be notable for having the distinction, although being the lead in a feature-length film might be worthy of consideration also. Thoughts? skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak support for moving the criteria to dubious. I basically agree, and can easily imagine a non-notable star with their name in a title. But I am open to be convinced otherwise. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. I don't feel that having something named after a performer is really enough, in the current industry, to stand out. Back in the days of John Holmes, this would be a very strong claim to notability, though nowadays pornography is so prevalent that any porn company can take a chick, make a compliation with her on it, and sell it. There needs to be more... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm the one who added the criterion to start with; this again seems to be a difference between gay and straight porn. My experience is that, with rare exceptions, a gay porn film title would only include the name of a well-known, notable performer. Being ignorant of other classes of porn, however, I will bow to what works best for the majority. At the risk of making things more difficult, I really feel that this doesn't belong in a section called "Dubious", however. The criterion may be of lesser weight, but I feel "dubious" is too strong a term; perhaps the section could be renamed? Just my thoughts.—Chidom ^talk  14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, we may be on to something here. Joe writes that having a performer's name in the title of a movie meant something when performers made relatively few movies (few meaning tens, rather than hundreds). Chidom writes that having a name in the title means something in a genre where performers make relatively few movies (tens rather than hundreds). Is there a way to rewrite this criterion so it applies to less prolific genres or time periods? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Films with the names of actors in the titles in and of itself does not create notability, regardless of genre. I can make a case for this in the pre-VHS era, due to the cultural differences and relative rarity. Rewriting the criteria to only include films produced before 1980 would close the AfD notability loophole.

In response to Chidom, I think notable gay actors tend to meet other criteria, however if you think this criteria is important to ensuring that they do, I would want to find a way to make sure that they along with actors in other specialized areas of porn were recognized under this guideline. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this would rarely be a stand-alone criterion for a truly notable performer. That being said, in the case of performers that meet other criteria using "fuzzy" standards, this criterion could sometimes serve to bolster the claim of notability for such performers.

As an example, a notable gay performer of the late 70s/early 80s with a very limited videography was Johnny Harden. He had two films with his name in the title, Johnny Harden and the Champs (Falcon Pac No. 2, 1978) and Johnny Harden and Friends (Le Salon, 1982). The only other non-compilation gay film for him that I can find is Pieces of Eight (HIS Video, 1980).

He was noted for his auto-fellatio skills, being able to do much more than kiss the tip of his own penis, but inserting the entire head and some of the shaft into his mouth. He also had a scene where he was able to have anal sex with himself—inserting his penis into his own anus. Even though he only did a few films, the fact that he could do these things and had done them on camera was widely known and his films were "must-see" for any serious porn lovers.

He was also a cross-over performer long before that was "allowed"; he made straight porn under the name Gene Carrier. that didn't hurt his popularity any; it added another reason to see him—"Just look what that straight guy can do! Who knew straight guys liked anal sex?" (Or, "If he's really into that, can he be all that straight?") At about the same time, François Papillon also did some solo appearances in gay films; they became very popular as well.

I'm sure some would argue that he isn't/wasn't significant. He preceded the days of organized awards for gay porn; although the three studios with which he worked would go on to become important, they hadn't really done so at the time. He would "fuzzily" fit under criterion 6 as to being notable in a niche; the eponymous film titles would add credence to a claim of notability.

If at all possible, I'd like to avoid having this be a "gay only" criterion; again, I'm not familiar enough with the other genres to know how or if it would fit there.—Chidom ^talk  20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose with reservations I am pretty ignorant of the American scene, so I can't say whether #7 is applicable here or not, and I leave commentary on that up to other editors. But the problem point #7 faces is the problem this whole set of notability criteria faces-- it must be applied to "porn" actors of all genres, all time periods and all countries. I edit mainly in the area of Japanese erotic cinema, so I have had to work around the unintentional bias built into these notability criteria. When the inevitable AfD comes up (and up, and up, and up...), those who wish to delete the articles apply these criteria literally, even if they are completely irrelevant to the very different Japanese adult entertainment industry.

Articles on Japanese erotic film actresses have to pass one of the 7 points listed here, several of which can be thrown out immediately as unpassable: #1 the awards-- specifically American awards are listed, and the "Japanese counterparts," if they even exist, are unknown to me. #2 The Playboy/Penthouse centerfold test-- unpassable, again because these are US publication, and the "Japanese equivalents" (and who is to determine what the Japanese equivalents are?) do not have "Playmates," and usually do not have centerfolds. The old 100-film limit was usually unpassable since, even though the Japanese adult video output is very high, Japanese performers are generally far less prolific.

Consequently we wind up with the absurd situation of Japanese adult performers failing to pass a notability test, even though they are far more notable in their own society than their American counterparts are in theirs. Besides the very high visibility adult entertainment has in Japan, these actresses appear on mainstream TV, radio, news magazines, etc. This, theoretically, enables the performer to pass #5 in the notability criteria, however those of us who are not currently in Japan have considerable difficulty finding evidence of these mainstream appearances.

Finally, we have #7, which is the one point a notable Japanese adult performer can pass, and of which, even lacking an easily searchable IAFD, we can usually find evidence on a mainstream source like Japanese Amazon. And, because of the nature of Japanese AVs, this is not just a loophole. The actress is the complete star and sole focus of the entire video. The standard format of a Japanese AV consists of a lengthy interview with the actress, a modeling session, and then sex scenes. The focus of the entire video, from beginning to end, is on the actress whose name appears in the title.

So I say, keep point #7, but modify it in such a way to make sure it is used in a meaningful manner. (I'd also re-think #1 and #2 to be more inclusive, or add two other points that are passable by performers of other countries, genres and time periods...) Dekkappai 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

When the notability guidelines were first drafted, much of it was to deal with American (and European) pornography actors. Like you, I would very much like to see criteria which covers AV idols as well, so I would personally like to see discussions on that. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joe. I've been a bit unsure on how to work on the AV actresses, who fall under my area of interest. (I'm also planning on working on the Roman Porno area). If you, or anyone else, want to look at my major AV works in progress and add any suggestions/comments/pointers on their talk pages, I would greatly appreciate it: User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 1980s, User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 1990s, and User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 2000s. I'm not sure how to go about establishing notability for inclusion on these lists, and have been using #7-- a verifiable AV with the actresses name in the title-- as part of that. I'm also requiring two references for each name. Dekkappai 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring up a number of points that might be very good to discuss in detail in another discussion (such as researching and adding awards other countries give to prominent performers). Being that we work in English, we are somewhat inherently limited to mainstream sources published in or translated by their source into English to verify any claim to notability, not just for pornographic actors. Sales information is not an existing criterion of notability (due to WP:NOR), as useful as it would be.

A further question for you on Japanese AV's - how many are typically produced by a given performer where he/she is named in the title and is featured in the fashion you describe? As stated in my proposal my problem was with this happening once in an American-style video with no such features (with the exception of perhaps outtakes) among dozens of not notable flicks. If a significant portion of their work is done like this (in contrast to others in the industry) that would stand out. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The documentary-style of the AV (interview/model/sex scenes) was created by Toru Muranishi, and used with his videos featuring Kaoru Kuroki. According to Kjell Fornander's article, A Star is Porn: "The first appearance for an AV girl is as a so-called new face. Viewers are invited to follow, from appearance to appearance, her sexual initiation, dawning self-awareness and gradual acceptance of her inner, dark depths. By the end of this pornographic rite of passage, her credibility as a new face is spent and she takes the role of a mature, voracious star. After five or more movies, she specializes: SM, lesbianism, advanced group sex—in videos..." So, watching a particular actress' career span through these videos is part of the experience. How many a particular actress' name appears in, I have not heard. I could probably check through the list on my work in progress, but this would probably constitute original research. One article says "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" made 39 movies over 16 years, if that helps. Dekkappai 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. per above. --Haham hanuka 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Comment for Skrshawk On further thought, I think that your concern about a "Best of..." video, collecting non-notable outtakes of a non-notable actor into one name-titled tape/DVD is already addressed in point #7-- "There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer." I take "not a compilation" to mean that it must be an original work featuring the performer, not a collection of excerpts. Dekkappai 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts I share your concern about subjects who pass notability guidelines, but still make poor articles. In my own area, I've found Japanese AV actresses who can easily pass the old 100-film requirement, but still won't make much of an article because there's not much else to say about them other than vital statistics and number of films. On the other hand, an actress like Kaoru Kuroki, though (as far as I can tell so far) appearing in relatively few films, makes a good subject for an article because of the multiple sources mentioning her, and her interesting life beyond the AV world. So the number of films, or any other objective notability criteria can be irrelevant to determining whether a good, well-sourced, interesting article be written on the subject.

I believe that actresses who pass a basic notability requirement, but about whom we can't do much more than give vital statistics and number of films, do deserve mention in a historical discussion of the AV industry which includes a listing of AV actresses by year. However, even though they do pass notability, they may not necessarily deserve their own article until enough information is gathered that would warrant a separate article. Such a list would serve the purpose of having the name and vital statistics for these actresses listed. It would also serve as a starting point for research on these actresses until a substantive article can be started.

Speaking again from the "friends-of-Japan" lobby, we did have a list (List of Japanese female porn stars) until June of last year, when it was deleted. Similar lists remain at other Wikipedias-- Japanese and Chinese-- and on non-specifically Japanese subjects here-- e.g. List of female porn stars, List of female porn stars by decade. The removal of that list meant that each Japanese actress had to have her own article.

So, once the AV history/list article is put in place, I would agree with removing the stub (vital-statistics and number of films only) articles, as long as information on those actresses can be stored on that list article. Dekkappai 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. (I'm replying to the entire thread to this point as possible here with fairly broad thoughts.) I certainly understand the arguments being made by other commentors, and think it might be best to take any proposal off the table until a broader understanding of the issues at hand are reached and then propose something later (honestly, I didn't realize what I posted would open up so many underlying issues - it just means we have more to talk about before doing anything).

The big concern as I'm seeing it (and tell me if I'm not seeing this right) is that the name in title criterion is a catchall that helps establish notability for notable performers who might not meet other criteria. My concern is that this is getting exploited by not notable performers. Also in the discussion other criteria have shown need for further discussion in conjunction with this, hence why any action on this alone without talking about those would not address the whole issue. There may be more worms in the can once we start there.

I think once this discussion has finished we should archive this talk page to start a new round, possibly with an appropriate banner on the main page that these guidelines are currently in discussion (nothing to suggest they are in material dispute, but more to invite interested parties into an active revision process). While technically this might be a proposal, maybe this is safe? skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are there specific articles where you feel criterion #7 is being "exploited"?—Chidom ^talk  03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some relatively in-depth research to back this up (and maybe I should have done this sooner). Here's what I came up with. In the last month we had approximately 45 (I didn't keep an exact count) articles that cited the WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Out of them, six of them featured a noteworthy debate where the article kept where I felt it shouldn't have been, deleted with significant reservation from the editors, or no consensus was reached. No more than that many (and I think significantly fewer) showed the guideline working as intended. Here is a summary of the articles I found.

Kimberly Franklin - This was the final straw that led me to reconsider the criterion. I realized that AfD's like this would continue until the guideline was changed in some manner to cover this case, as people are applying it in a hard and fast manner, unless the attitude towards AfD's as a whole changes.

I've put in my recommendation. The film in question is a compilation, not an original film.—Chidom ^talk  03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sana Fey - Another case I saw early on that tipped me off this was a problem. Barely made the 100 film cutoff (a dubious criteria) and a squeaky #7 - one film early in their career is a technicality, especially when shared with another performer.

The film in question is part of a series of films that all are named for the performers in them; they are not stand-out features built around a known performer. How to clarify the use of #7 raises its head here and elsewhere.—Chidom ^talk  03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kayla Kleevage - This actress was certainly notable under criterion #5, however in the AfD it was discussed that her #7 claim was so weak that the article would quite possibly have been defeated had it not been for her appearances on Howard Stern and Jerry Springer.

It's good that she's notable under #5; I can't say #7 applies. The film in question was a 30-minute short. Perhaps the criterion should be amended to read "full-length feature film"?—Chidom ^talk  03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cathy Barry - Despite what might have appeared to have been a more substantial claim to a criterion #7, it was unable to establish full consensus as judged by the closing admin. This goes somewhat in contradiction to the discussion with Kimberly Franklin... so I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm including this for debate, as she had 5-7 films that met #7.

Can't find info on films other than at IMDB; specifics as to content, etc., aren't included there. The "Diaries" films may or may not be compilations; if not, this is exactly the sort of film I was thinking of. Apparently the producer felt there was enough peformer name recognition that their "Diaries" would want to be seen.—Chidom ^talk  03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Juggs - The epitome of the kind of article that I want to eliminate. Absolutely not notable except for one film with her name in it.

The one film is her debut film. I again would appear that #7 needs refinement. This application is definitely not what I had in mind.—Chidom ^talk  03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ines_Cudna - This actress never made AfD but was linked off of another discussion. She meeds the one-film-with-name-in-title criteria and has a bunch of picture galleries online. Again, the epitome of non-notable pornstar that is not doing anything other than using Wikipedia as a place to advertise her presence.

Another first film.—Chidom ^talk  03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hikari_Hino - I realize this was your baby Dekkappai, but I dare say this got out of control on everyone's part. Nonetheless, it seriously makes the point of why this needs to go to a broader field - for the same reasons that the above actresses were not notable yours was none the more by American standards, and unfortunately being that relatively uneducated editors will be continuing to make these decisions now and in the future we need to modify this guideline. I think guideline #6 made your case far stronger, however it was worth pointing out that this start had as many films named after her as she did. The one example I could find that made more than a marginal claim with #7 had weaknesses in other areas and might even be subject to a review at some point.

Futhermore, all of these articles, even the last one, have yet to clear anything above stub quality. While this may be an overall fault of the WikiProject, making the project as manageable as possible is something that I think is very important for us to do, if from a deletionist perspective (and I hate that word). skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this was debated ad infinitum at the AfD, I won't get into it in depth here. I feel she probably is notable; however, before notability can be established, the information has to be verifiable. If English-language sources of information can't be found, there really shouldn't be an article in the English Wikipedia.—Chidom ^talk  03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Hikari Hino article isn't actually my baby. A DNA check/edit history will show I didn't sire it, but I did play a part in the AfD discussion, and in the brouhaha that it became... Actually, I think Hikari Hino is a good example of what I was talking about above in "More thoughts." I do think she passes notability here. She didn't just squeak by with point 7 on a 1-film technicality. She has over a dozen DVDs with her name in the title. In a career of a little over a year, she had a significant amount of work listed at Amazon. However, does that equate to a good article? No, I don't think so. I think she's notable enough to be included on a list of Japanese AV stars of the 2000s, but I would not (yet) have started an article on her because we don't have much information on her beyond vital statistics and video titles. So again I come back to the deletion of the List of Japanese Porn Stars. Its deletion meant that a Hikari Hino could not be named here. Moving all the hundreds of Japanese names which were removed from Wikipedia with the deletion of that list into a more general (i.e. American) list like List of female porn stars or List of female porn stars by decade would probably be taken as a vandal-like action, and would probably have resulted in edit-warring. Yet not mentioning actresses like her lessens WP's ability to cover the Japanese adult entertainment field in any meaningful manner. So, in lieu of having her mentioned in passing in an article or on a list, I voted to keep the article on her, inadequate though it is. My philosophy is generally to improve when possible, rather than to delete. Once I get a historical article/list on AVs ready to be put up, I'll be much more inclined to vote to delete articles like this that are (with the current all-but-official ban on photos in these articles) basically just generic recitations of vital statistics, since the actress can be adequately mentioned and covered on that list.

I think Hikari Hino is a good case of where a performer would have clearly met #7, but also would have met another criteria, in this case #6 (although I hate to reduce an aspect of mainstream culture of another country to the niche of another - there has to be a better way to handle this). There's also a broader concern that goes far beyond any specific niche and fully encompasses Western mainstream pornography - how good can these articles get? Notability has a certain implication that there is something to say about them. The reason for #7 in the first place was that it implied that the movies themselves were notable. If these movies weren't even recognized by the industry, other performers, studios, or fans (for lack of a better word), what is the criterion doing, regardless of how many titles? Hino is certainly not a case of this, but ultimately I would think that she should be able to have something more than a stub article given her status in her field.

At some point I think List of Japanese Porn Stars should come up for deletion review once we have more consensus here and possibly a guideline chance that would support it and the articles that would be listed from it. But I digress. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Hikari Hino passes notability, therefore an article could potentially be written on her. To my thinking, this ensures her a place on a list. Whether she deserves an article (yet) depends on the material that can be gathered on her. As for that old list-- I don't think we need to review that deletion at this point. At the time (in June), I was unaware of the deletion review process, so I took it on myself fix the problems with the list that were brought up in the AfD discussion. In the process, it has become something very different. I decided to source and annotate each entry on the list, put them in chronological order by year of debut, and then to put a narrative thread/history of the Japanese AV industry with each year. Not to advertise this project too much, but I would be happy for any more experienced editors to take a look at it, and add comments or suggestions on their talk pages. (AnonEMouse has already given a lot of helpful suggestions.) They are in progress here: User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 1980s, User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 1990s, User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 2000s. (I have changes in mind, but won't go into them here.) Dekkappai 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did go on to use #7 in some AfD discussions on American actresses who are outside my realm of interest. This was more to participate in what I saw as a rash of AfDs in the category with "Porn? Yuck! Delete!" arguments. I meant to provide a counter-argument based on an actual policy point rather than to abuse a loophole in that policy. Also, decisions made in these American pornography subjects do affect those of us working in the Japanese field. (By the way, Sana Fey actually had a second video with her name in the title.)

Busty Conquests is one of a series of compilations, each one focusing on scenes for one particular performer. Being a compilation, #7 wouldn't apply.—Chidom ^talk  22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think most editors, even those that steer clear of this discussion agree we're not censored (I think I might have reverted Sexual Intercourse a time or two on RC patrol). I try to watch all of the AfDs for trends anyway, not just issues that I may be personally connected to, although I've been pretty lax lately as I've been in this discussion. Thanks for pointing out the second one about Sana Fey, but I don't think it significantly contributes to her notability one way or the other. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On foreign-language sources, Chidom, I can't really agree that they should be excluded. This equates to an "If I don't already know about it, I don't want to know about it" attitude that sometimes creeps up here. I don't think you mean that foreign-language sources are less reliable than English sources, only that they are harder for English-speaking editors to verify. I do try to provide English-language sources over Japanese sources in articles on Japanese subjects as much as possible. However, with a subject like Hikari Hino-- a new actress working exclusively in Japan-- obviously it's going to be very difficult to source an article on her without using some Japanese sources. And when we do have to rely on a Japanese source, my policy has been to try to help along the non-Japanese-reading editor as much as I can. For example, here. I feel that one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is that it can cover obscure, non-traditional subjects, or subjects on which there is as yet little information in English.

I think these are all issues worth mulling over, and I appreciate the chance to discuss them outside of a more highly-charged AfD setting. Dekkappai 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think to exclude a foreign language source, however we run into the difficulty of our ability to verify them. We are creating a repository of human knowledge, but it is limited to our ability to process it and present it in one language. To me the three major guidelines of verifiability, notability, and neutrality work in that order (show me consensus otherwise and I'll readily change my view - remember I'm still rather wet behind the ears!). The burden of proof of the first two areas is on the creators of an article and subsequently on the relatively unpredictable AfD cabal. I would much rather trust the former since they are far more likely to be familiar with Japanese and the surrounding culture than anyone who frequents the trenches of AfD - it gets ugly down here. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'll have to eat some crow on foreign language sources, I think. I'm not sure I agree with this, but the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English allows for editor-translated sources as long as a link to the source in its original language is provided "so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation". How someone who doesn't speak the foreign language is to do that is beyond me. It does state that English-language sources are preferred, or published translations rather than editor translations. (I'm paraphrasing here, go check it out.)

The danger here is that unscrupulous editors can make up sources or have sources say whatever they need them to say. Yes, it will get found out eventually; that doesn't lessen the potential damage until they do. I didn't set the policy, however, so as long as some sort of link to the original source is provided, it meets WP:V (I'm also trying to work on assuming good faith).

I can also assure you, Dekkappai, that my rationale is based solely on the difficulty of verifying foreign-language sources. It's definitely not the "if I don't know...I don't want to" attitude you describe.

For nearly any other topic, I would posit that if the subject is notable enough to be included in the English-language Wikipedia, there should be English-language sources on the subject. Given that this is porn, however, and it's frequently (usually) difficult to find English-language sources on English-language porn, I can't expect that reasoning to be applied here.

I would also agree with you that notability doesn't mean an article needs to be written. While the context may be easy to establish, the content—as you said—would be quite paltry on someone as new as this.—Chidom ^talk  22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is well established that the goal of Wikipedia is to represent a worldwide view on all subjects. This is, of course, difficult where there is a language barrier, and even more difficult when notability is defined differently across cultures. So in a way we are a translation project, however we are going to be limited to the most notable of subjects in cultures less similar to our own. Tough, isn't it?

Starting topic fork, now. This has gone on too long. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I again express my thoughts that we should split this discussion into multiple parts to address the criterion #7 aspects, the #1/#2 aspects, the mainstream in other cultures, the niche notability aspects (gay, BDSM, and transgendered were mentioned specifically, but there are likely others), and any others. Maybe this should start with a let's figure out what all needs to be discussed topic and break out some topics. Again, archiving prior discussion is also an option. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. This whole section has become difficult to read and wanders all over the map a bit. I've started a bulleted list of possible discussion topics below; let's work on identifying what we want/need to discuss as a first step?

Also, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars; I wonder if some of these discussions have already taken place there.—Chidom ^talk  22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Criteria seven was not in the proposal when it was elevated to a guideline. A few days back, I researching a DRV, I saw that it was proposed here, not discussed here, and then added a few days later. I have no idea if criteria seven was discussed elsewhere, but the talk/archives of this page didn't link to any such discussion. GRBerry 04:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support eliminating criterion 7 altogether. I have seen Afds where someone asserted that a porn star had to have an article because their name appeared in the title of one of their films. This is a "backdoor" to let a non-notable performer have a Wikipedia article by virtue of slapping their name on a videotape and offering it for sale, even if it is little noted. The Wikipedia article would be pretty cheaply bought, compared to the requirements for, say professors, shopping malls, churches, authors, or athletes. This gimme of a criterion is an obvious target for a non-notable performer who wants a Wikipedia article for promotional purposes, and I doubt the industry will be slow to jump on it. What a work is called has zero bearing on how notable it is. It is like saying an author is notable enough for an article if he self publishes a book with his name in the title"The Wit and Wisdom of Joe X" written by Joe X. Makes as much sense as '"Busty Juggs Goes Wild #2" starring Busty Juggs' automatically entitling Ms. Juggs to an article (sorry if someone is actually using that name).Edison 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with WP:BIO?

It's seems to be the optimal solution. Porn stars are people. The is no other "Notability guideline" for a specific group of people. --Haham hanuka 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Haham hanuka 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• There is no reason to have a separate guideline which makes it easier to prove notability for a particular subject like this. But it would be fine to add some phraseology to the merged guideline telling what film databases should be checked to prove validity. Some of the work done here could thus be kept. Edison 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• AnonEMouse ^(squeak). There certainly are other notability guidelines for specific groups of people: Academics (professors); Musicians; Royalty. Also, Haham hanuka, you're a well known editor of porn star articles, so I'm not sure if you realize what will happen if this does get merged in. Porn star article deletion debates will become more difficult through obscurity, and some will be deleted since people won't have genre-specific guidelines to refer to. While, in theory, WP:BIO does cover "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." many people don't recognize that is what an AVN Award is. While WP:BIO does cover "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." but without WP:PORNBIO's "niche genre" we'll have constant arguments over what well-known means - basically no porn films beyond the "Golden Age" are "well known" by mainstream standards. We'll certainly lose the "name in title" criterion you're trying to keep above. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per AnonEMouse. Dekkappai 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per AnonEMouse. WP:PORNBIO only elaborates how WP:BIO relates to pornography actors. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the examples of why these guidelines were drafted in the first place - there was an incredible amount of ambiguity in what made a pornstar notable. Merging the guidelines into a format concise enough to fit within WP:BIO would not provide enough detail to assist editors in the contexts the guidelines were intended, or they would be apply too broadly to subjects outside of this specific area. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per AnonEMouse and skrshawk. As well, WP:PORNBIO is useful in that it clearly delineates what is not valid criteria for notability and why (e.g., Alexa count, Google hits). Tabercil 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per AnonEMouse. Iamcuriousblue 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) are just proposed Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability (music) is not only about people. --Haham hanuka 17:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Invalid Criteria

These criteria should not be considered when defining notability for erotic actors and actresses. The person has a relationship with a well-known person. Reason: Just because the person is related to a well-known person does not make that person notable. The person should be able to be independently notable without defining notability through a relationship.

I don't know if I agree with this. Julia Parton I think is more notable than another performers with similar filmographies because of her alleged relationship to Dolly Parton. Wafah Dufour (who hasn't done porn, just modelling in men's magazines) is notable for being related to Bin Laden. Think also of Donna Rice, Jessica Hahn, Monica Lewinsky, etc. (again not porn) all of whom, if the people they'd had relationships with were less famous, would not be notable themselves, but who are considered notable because of their relationships to notable people. Anyway, I wouldn't think there'd be all that many porn stars that have blood relationships with or are publically dating famous people. Шизомби 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "famous people". The number of porn stars that have dated minor rock stars (that we do have articles on) is rather large. Rice, Hahn, and Lewinsky aren't strictly notable for relationships, they're notable for scandals, that's not quite the same thing. For example, less scandalous girlfriends of Hart, Bakker, and Clinton (say before marriage) would not be notable. Wafah Dufour may be a rare exception, and even for her I'd argue she's notable more for the interviews, magazines, and TV series, rather than the sheer facts of her being related; if she didn't get that media notice, she wouldn't deserve an article here. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and unless we can cite that Julia Parton relationship bit, it should be stricken. Dolly Parton is known as a relatively religious person, and a relationship with a porn star could well be a highly controversial assertion, which would be against our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I'm going to go do a quick search, and if I can't find a reasonably good source, will have to strike it. I'd much prefer a good source, see Dick Smothers, Jr.. That's a better example - he's not notable for the relationship per se, but he is notable because he had stories about the relationship - a fine point, perhaps, but important. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourced Julia Parton. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good deal, it's also stated in a number of books, e.g. "Parton, a cousin of the country singer, is publisher of High Society magazine and an occasional hardcore performer." Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide Volume II by Joseph W. Slade. Anyway, it's also a lot less controversial to claim to be someone's cousin, since there's so many different kinds of cousins. Шизомби 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The person has an entry on a filmography database, such as IMDB, IAFD, et al. Reason: Databases such as IAFD and IMDB provide information on all performers, regardless of the number of productions he or she is involved in. Since Wikipedia is not a database of all persons, the criteria used by these databases and Wikipedia are not mutually inclusive.

I think some distinction should be drawn between what is actually stated in WP:NOT and that which is seen as similar to it. Also, I've personally never come to a conclusion about how to interpret Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which seems opposite to the above assertion. WP is an encyclopedia. WP is an encyclopedia of film. How far can we specify the type of encyclopedia that WP is before we reach something that it is not? For example, the decision was made that WP is NOT an encyclopedia of Star Trek. To that, I have to ask: why not? Not out of any great love of ST, and indeed to have such extensive coverage of fictional things when so many factual articles are lacking would be embarassing, but embarassment isn't a counterweight to WP:NOT#PAPER is it? So is WP an encyclopedia of pornography? If somebody is covered in such an encyclopedia elsewhere, should they be covered here? The AVN Guide to the 500 Greatest Adult Films of All Time, The X-Rated Videotape Guides? : Шизомби 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is that we are not quite the sum of all possible encyclopedias, we do have a general Notability boundary. There are minor entries that would fit in an exhaustive Star Trek encyclopedia, or an exhaustive porn encyclopedia, that wouldn't fit here. There was a failed Pornopedia project some years back, and there's a boobopedia project starting now that had a stated goal of making room for porn actresses not notable enough for Wikipedia. Here, let me link to that last one so the other guy doesn't get in trouble for doing it! :-). http://www.boobpedia.com AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, though, how does one quite balance notability with not paper? If a paper encyclopedia (even of a relatively trivial subject) does cover something, it's a little strange for WP not to unless it redefines not paper. (Ironically perhaps, I tend to be more of an exclusionist here though.) Шизомби 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the IAFD have an editorial board who verify and screen information, or can anyone register and add films and biographies? If the latter, then having an entry there may be useful information, but does not really prove notability, and sounds more like a posting at a blog. I have seen AfDs where it was argued that we could not delete an entry for a performer because they were listed in the database. Does it really prove anything that they are? Edison 15:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Explicit content" warnings

I've been having a discussion with Tabercil over "Explicit content" warnings given next to some external links/sources. Is there an official policy on these? My thoughts are that providing them censors nothing, and provides a warning for the easily-offended. Dekkappai 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is (at least from any of the obvious places to look for this), and I'm not necessarily certain that this is a good idea. I think good editorial policy indicates that the nature of external links will provide source information for the article they link to, and in the case of pornographic actors, the reader should can be expected to understand that sort of content is a very realistic possibility without the need for further warning. Basically, placing these kind of warnings could snowball into needing to warn readers of Wikipedia content, and I really don't like the thought of that. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese wikipedia does give content warnings right at the top of the articles. For example their article on Naho Ozawa (here). Notice at the top of the page, a little banner with an 18-year warning, and a statement beginning, "This article is on a pornographic subject..." I'm not saying I think we should go this far. And even on external links, I'm fine either way, with or without warning. Just wondering what the policy/consensus is. Dekkappai

This is actually covered at a much higher level; I see no harm in including "Explicit content" or "Adult material" or similar language in an article.

For the "parent" of those, however, see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer: WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE.—Chidom ^talk  22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that actually does without going so far as to soft-redirect articles that editors subjectively feel need this, and to what extent this might be applied. I feel that it would lead to some pretty dangerous territory that we're better off leaving alone. Even if we only have a warning at the top of a page it could explode into a "what is adult content" debate across articles well outside pornographic actors that we really don't want to see. I strenuously object. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I got to thinking about this because I've had the habit of putting "Contains nudity," or "Adult content" after some sources, to differentiate them from sources that are just text-- statistics and filmographies. I noticed that some of these had been removed. Again, it makes little difference to me either way. Dekkappai 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional discussion needed

This is just a bulleted list of topics that may need to be discussed further and a brief description of issues or why the discussion needs to take place. It is not meant to be a place where those discussions begin. If these turn into sections of discussion we can certainly link the specific section to the listed item here.—Chidom ^talk  22:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Notability criterion #7
  • Inconsistent / incorrect application (compilations don't meet the criteria)
  • Needs to be better (more narrowly?) defined

• World view criteria
  • Non-American porn
  • Sources to establish notability
    • Non-English-language sources
  • Additional criteria or
  • Redefine existing criteria to address differences / be more inclusive
  • Awards in other countries
  • Equivalent publications vis-a-vis Playboy, Penthouse, etc.

• Genres / niches
  • List of genres?
  • List of niches?
  • Criteria specific to a genre or niche?

Worldwide View

Start by referring to the side conversations in the Criterion number seven thread. I'm not sure where to go from here other than the long list of points in the discussion point topic, so I will let the other people who have been talking about this start and jump back in when I can contribute more. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

disputed

I dispute this as an inclusion guideline... it runs contrary to modern WP:N and the real standards we have for inclusion, where the question is more about whether there's enough reliable information to create an article, than highly subjective "this person is really important" stuff. Even if these current PORNBIO inclusion guidelines are met, it would quite possibly not yield enough information for a NPOV, verifiable article. Look at Kimberly Franklin... do we really want articles that could never do much more than describe the sex acts performed in a 12 minute web clip?

This guideline really should restate WP:N, then, similar to WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, list things that make a porn star likely to meet WP:N. --W.marsh 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, let's consider the definition of notability used on Wikipedia.

"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other."

The way most pornographic actors are known is through their work, which is marketed and sold. Unlike mainstream actors, the mainstream media does not typically report on them (and when they do it's usually not for a good reason) - there is only their inherently biased industry to recognize their efforts. Depending on how strict you would like to be about this, we could wipe most of Wikipedia of all kinds of stub articles and other "junk". In the process, we may very well make it impossible for significant actors in areas we have described in very recent discussions to get articles here and ultimately do a disservice to our project. It may very well be possible to have what you want, but be sure you've thought this through, not only in what you want but how you want it and how far you're willing to go to get it. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that if we can really do no more than summarize Wikipedian's observations of the scenes a star has been in, we end up with articles like the one I linked to above. I don't really see this as setting a bad precedent, it's really just an extension of WP:V which has been there forever, despite wild slippery slope claims, most articles on Wikipedia are on topics covered by reliable sources. You're basically saying that Wikipedia is for NPOV and accurate articles, unless it's about a porn star then who knows? That's not something I want to do. --W.marsh 03:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am no more a fan of stub-length articles that have no chance of being developed into anything more than this, much less being a quick reference of physical attributes for people to take on their next search to the less reputable parts of the Internet. That's why I started much of the previous round of discussion in the first place. I'm familiar with the article you linked to - I went off the handle myself when I saw it right here on this talk page. My concern remains - I would rather leave boobcruft at the expense of ensuring that notable but niche performers are covered.

However, if consensus exists, I will drop that, bearing in mind that in the process we will, as I said, eliminate most pornographic actors, and virtually all that did not produce mainstream Western pornography. I also suspect that we will also run into severe NPOV issues because those who will make the cut will have done so due to their notoriety as much as anything. Independently verifiable sources outside the pornography industry do not tend to approve of it and that will lend its own bias, no matter how we try to objectively cover the subject. I'll step out of the discussion at this point until others have had a chance to comment. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While remaining cognizant of the sourcing difficulties even the most established members of this industry face for our purposes, I'd like to examine the most serious problems with the current guideline, by examining, in turn, the current criteria.

1. (Major awards) The first criterion is relatively unobjectionable; we could quibble about what constitutes a major award, but that is not for this stage in the disucssion.
2. (Yearly/monthly features) Playmate etc. of the Year, I'll accede to. Of the Month? That is, potentially, granting a nod to as many as 24 biographies each year (12 for Playboy, 12 for Penthouse), without considering any "similar titles in other major magazines." Yes, some people are repeat winners. No, I don't think that makes a difference.
3. (Unique contribution) So long as this is appropriately documented, this has potential as a condition that makes verifiability/notabilty likely. Simply claiming that someone was the first performer to do (insert something kinky here) does not automatically qualify: a significant share of the porn industry sells product through bizarre novelty.
4. (News/controversy) Obviously, this would entail independent third party coverage by definition. The criterion as written requires one such reference. WP:BIO says multiple. The criterion needs tightened to the parent standard.
5. (Mainstream media) This appears, on its face, to inherently meet the WP:BIO conditions; pornographic performers who move on to mainstream media can satisfy notability through their mainstream media contribution -- there is no "porn penalty".
6. (Genre work) Impossibly open-ended as written. The porn industry sells product by inventing and describing niche markets and then generating product to fill them. I understand the intent behind this criterion, but, at least as written, it seems unworkable.
7. (Original film) The film-naming proclivities of porn studios should not be a free pass to Wikipedia notability.

--Serpent's Choice 08:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• They're all arbitrary and exactly the kind of stuff we're trying to get away from. A major award might generate press for someone, those meeting WP:N. Winning some silly award probably won't. Being a monthly feature might generate coverage, having one's own film, etc. don't automatically generate coverage, but they often do. It's really pretty simple. The guidelines as they are now indicate (intentional or accidental) confusion over verifiability. --W.marsh 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kimberly Franklin did not meet WP:PORNBIO, as Chidom observed at the Afd. Meanwhile, if you look just a few sections above, the name-in-film-title criterion is being specifically disputed. Being a guideline, this page is an observation of the way Afds consistently run - not the way they should run according to one person's logic, but the way they have generally run over a number of disputes. For example, someone may not like the Playmate criterion - several have objected, in fact, for various reasons. Well, look at the Playmate articles - we have a complete, or an almost complete set. Many of them were nominated for deletion - in the end all were kept, many specifically because most people considered being a Playmate sufficient notability. Same for most of these points. In other words, if you want to overturn one of these points, it can be done, but you will have to convince a large number of people. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't... verifiability isn't optional and none of these points guarantee verifiability. The whole problem is that this guideline introduces a lot of subjectivity where it isn't needed, it might seem more simple at first to create a long list of subjective qualifications, but it quickly becomes problematic and just thinking objectively about sourcing is where Wikipedia is heading. I'm not saying to scrap these altogether, but they need to be clarified as criteria that make it likely that reliable information has been written on someone, not standalone guarantees of it, as we've done with other guidelines. --W.marsh 18:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you write that none of these points guarantee verifiability. Many of these points are verifiable by definition. Being a Playmate, for example: these are widely available magazines, even in back issues, all the way back to the original issue. Appearing in popular media, news/controversy: also verifiable by definition. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

These things are only notable for the reasons listed if someone has actually written about them. Maybe you take that as a given, but I see lots of claims that a given person has started a trend or is iconic or whatever and thus meets this guideline, but often no real evidence of that can ever be presented to verify them. This is what I mean by these guidelines being confusing and misleading... they stress claims of importance over actual evidence. If someone is written about, it may be for any number of reasons... the important thing is that they actually were written about, not the subjective reasons that happened. These criteria may help assess whether reliable information is likely to exist, but claims of meeting various criteria are ultimately no substitute for showing that the information actually exists. --W.marsh 18:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Still not sure what exactly your objection to the guideline as a whole is. Is it that subjects can meet the guideline without having sources covering them in depth? Well, that's sort of the case with all the guidelines in the Wikipedia:Notability box - they only strongly imply that sources to write an article will exist. In some cases it won't ever be a Wikipedia:Featured Article, true, but we're still usually better off with it than not. For example, look at many of the articles on List of companies by revenue - they're barely above stubs, only referring to sources published by the subject in question: E.ON, Aviva, etc. We're still better off with them, because they are clearly notable - they meet WP:CORP. Or is it that people can lie about a subject meeting the guideline? Well, yes, no guideline can guarantee that people won't lie about meeting it. If someone claims X has started a trend, they certainly need to be able to present sources saying so. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to be more clear about this... we should include articles because there is enough reliable information about their subjects to write more than a directory-style listing (which would be along the lines of "this person appeared in this many films from X to Y", e.g. IMDB style stuff). The guideline currently muddles that, and makes it seem like claims are more important than actual information. Show me some sources that go beyond a directory listing, that's convincing... make "I like it" arguments and claims without any evidence, that's not convincing. This guideline does a disservice to people wanting an article kept because it doesn't stress the most important things in getting articles kept on Wikipedia today. --W.marsh 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It needs to be remembered that this is porn. If you believe pornographic subjects deserve to have well-written, appropriately well-sourced, unbiased non-commercial articles (and Wikipedia's non-censored policy implies that they do), then you have to accept the fact that these sources on the subject are going to be of a different nature than those on the big, traditional, mainstream topics. Sure, it's a great moment when we can find one of our subjects mentioned in a scholarly book or journal, but to expect that would be unreasonable. The purpose of this set of notability standards is to determine what is notable within the subject. It would be easy to eliminate any "unencyclopedic" article by holding sources on it to unreasonably high standards. Does Borat deserve an article? Do sources on the Borat article need to match the standards of those on Julius Caesar? Julius Caesar has a couple thousand years worth of scholarly writing on him, what does Borat have? Come on! Borat is encyclopedic! It is my opinion that those who force unreasonably high standards on subjects like Borat and pornography are actually doing Wikipedia a disservice. Wikipedia's strength is in the ability to cover these non-traditional subjects. Picture yourself in the mid-50s wanting a good, well-written, sourced, unbiased English-language encyclopedia article on Kenji Mizoguchi. A source like Wikipedia-- written by fans of the director who had seen his films, who voluntarily dug through the skimpy English literature on him for sourcing, and who voluntarily translated from Japanese sources when necessary-- would have been invaluable. On the other hand, what good would an article on Julius Caesar, written by a group of anonymous, uncredentialed writers (and some possible vandals) be? Just what Wikipedia is on these big, traditional subjects-- an interesting place to start, at best, but then you go on to the scholarly sources which actually exist on those subjects. Also, nowhere in these notability standards does it say that claims are acceptable over sourcing. If a particular article makes unsourced claims, one should either try to source them (and sourcing in this subject, unlike Julius Caesar, can be quite an interesting challenge), ask others to do so, or delete it until a source can be found. Dekkappai 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Borat has sources cited including CNN and ABC News, I've heard the character discussed at length on NPR... to say that I'd argue for deletion of that article is just totally misunderstanding my point. There's clearly enough information for an article on him, so I'm glad we have one. I'm talking about cases where such information simply doesn't exist, where any claim beyond directory information is pretty much going to be original research... we need to avoid that, not encourage it. Look at the article I cited at the top of this thread... where did that information come from? I honestly don't know, and would be interested to find out. Certainly very little of it is backed up by the one source, the IMDB page. To me, it seems that articles like that are a natural consequence of not stressing verifiable information. --W.marsh 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah... Borat was an example taken to an absurd extreme. Who would source an article on Caesar with CNN articles? Different sources for different subjects, you see. I'm glad you agree that sources of some kind are needed, not unsourced claims. So apparently your problem is not with these notability standards, but with the article in question. I hope you're bringing that up there. Regards. Dekkappai 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When I brought it up "there" (in passing on the DRV of the article) I was told my complaint was irrelevant there and I needed to dispute this guideline. Perhaps this explains my frustration somewhat :-) It's a good point that we wouldn't use CNN as a source on purely historical topics, and certainly I'm not like expecting peer-reviewed journals to be cited or a porn star article gets the axe. But we ultimately do need to look for reliable information, not vague claims of importance and silly summaries of sex acts performed in web clips. --W.marsh 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK-- but it seems to me you don't have a complaint with these notability criteria. I see a lot of complaining about criterion #7 at the review, but the subject, at least judging by the article, apparently does not pass that criterion. A quick search shows me no further signs of notability. So the notability criteria worked just fine here. Apparently they were mis-interpreted in the original AfD. If I had time and interest, I would search around more to see if maybe she actually does pass the criteria, but has not been properly sourced. But she's outside my area of specialization. It looks to me like the criteria are working fine in this case though. The article is not properly sourced, unsourced claims are made, and she does not pass notability. The failure here was in the AfD process. And it looks like that failure is soon to be set right. Dekkappai 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be specifically stated in the guideline that an article must meet Wikipedia:Verifiability before the criteria come into consideration. An unverifiable claim that someone meets the criteria means the criteria haven't been met.

As for the article currently under discussion (after an AfD that was decided on the basis of claims that had been demonstrated to be false, in my opinion), the article could be very nearly blanked even as we speak. There is precious little information in the article that is sourced, as the one source given is the IMDb profile. That profile gives her height, her sister's name, and a filmography. Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time". Have at it.—Chidom ^talk  03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Before I chimed in at the AfD review yesterday, I did find more sources on Kimberly Franklin than are given at the article-- at the standard American adult filmography databases. Someone might want to add them there. Looks like a lost cause to me though. Dekkappai 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

She still doesn't have any films that meet #7. Just in case some folks are still lost, the Kimberly Franklin AfD is the subject of a Deletion review.

As for #7, at this point I feel that #7 should, after all, just be scrapped. It's too easy to misinterpret, and I'm finding evidence that even when it's interpreted as I had intended, the industry doesn't reserve use of the convention solely for its major performers.

That being said, Should I wait until after the Kimberly Franklin issue is resolved (post-deletion review and probable new AfD) before deleting it to avoid any misunderstandings about why it's happening? Or can it go now?

More importantly, does anyone think it's worth saving or trying to fix?—Chidom ^talk  02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, myself, I think #7's worth keeping in some form. This "We shouldn't let the PORN industry tell US who is notable" line of arguing doesn't hold much water with me. Why would they put a performer's name on a tape, unless they thought it would help sell tapes? And how could they sell tapes if the performer's name is not known and marketable? Maybe it needs to be re-worded, maybe further limits need to be put on it. (Maybe above a certain number of self-named videos? Maybe a theatrical release? Emphasizing the no-anthology rule?...) Again, the Kimberly Franklin affair is an error in interpretation, and in the AfD process. Dekkappai 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(Back to the left margin.) If kept, a qualification that could be added would be that the film is a "feature-length" original (not a compilation), one of the films that was referenced in one of the other AfDs was 30 minutes long.—Chidom ^talk  05:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to Dekkappai): The "we shouldn't let the porn industry tell us who is notable" argument has merit. The pornographic industry functions thanks to aggressive marketing efforts - more so than any other mass media. One popular tactic is to create these specialized videos or internet portals for every contracted actor. Without sales figures or media coverage it is difficult to discern this sort of fabricated "pornstar" fame from a more legitimate prominence. There are many actors/production houses with fanclubs, video series, and websites that are patronized by only hundreds of customers (several thousand, if they're lucky). Allowing them an article in such circumstances is to, in effect, promote them based on nothing else but their own hype. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can follow that argument, Anetode. I guess I was thinking of it like some arguments I've seen at AfDs for Japanese subjects, ("Just because the Japanese Wikipedia covers it doesn't mean we should, we shouldn't let them tell us what's notable...") However, I still remain unconvinced that there's absolutely no value at all to some sort of a name-on-film sign of notability. Again, I think it should be fixed, not completely thrown out. Dekkappai 00:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed how? I think that the current PORNBIO criteria should be weighed to make it clear that there is a greater standard, or even concept, of notability that should be addressed, not merely a survey of technicalities to be satisfied. There is absolutely no proof that meeting either #1, #3, or #7 alone can guarantee notability without accounting for other factors. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed to ensure that non-notable subjects can't squeak through on, for example, on anthology with their name in the title. It sounds like your problem is with the whole concept of Wikipedia:Notability. Objective guidelines have to be put in place to prove notability, and notability for subjects in different fields is naturally going to differ. Who's to say that a subject "is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." We the Wikipedia community do. Dekkappai 18:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That passage you just cited is actually exactly what I'm talking about. A single, trivial criterion from PORNBIO cannot be an objective guideline. This discussion has already noted how #7 is not a universal standard, that its application must be weighed based on cultural factors (American, European, or Japanese), the overall publishing history of the actor, and the overall number of sales. I don't have a problem with notability, except that care should be taken with installing shortcuts. If you examine the overall coverage of pornographic actors on Wikipedia, you'll find many one-sentence placeholders that will never go anywhere (check out the List of Penthouse Pets) and poorly written stubs on minor genre-specific actors. Notability standards should ensure that there is probably sufficient material to write at least a decent, well-referenced stub on an actor. Currently they don't. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The passage is not from PORNBIO, but from Wikipedia:Notability. I do agree that that simply passing an objective notability requirement does not guarantee a good article. But short of saying, "There must be enough material, from a variety of reliable sources, to write a decent article on the subject." How do we do that? Unless we make a similar sentence the over-riding criterion... And actually, I wouldn't have a problem with something like this. Dekkappai 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the necessity of having enough material backed by a variety of reliable sources is not only essential as the basis for any sort of biography, it is also the point of WP:BLP. Localized notability criteria are good for guiding and clarifying the gist of WP:N, but they should not become the primary overriding force. This is not really explained at all in PORNBIO, but it should be. Sadly PORNBIO gets more use as a shortcut for AfD proceedings then as a resource for building quality biographies. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Awards" criteria very American-biased

One of the criteria for notability is is "Performer has won an award from", which procedes to give a list of American adult film awards. However, other parts of the world have porn industries too, and in several cases, they have awards as well. The European (heterosexual) porn industry has three notable awards that I know of, the Hot d'Or, the Awards Européens du X, and the Venus Awards. There may also be awards for the European gay porn industry.

Winning one of these awards should demonstrate notability for a European pornographic actor and should be added to the list.

This has had an affect on at least one article so far – the article on Anja Juliette Laval (winner of the 2003 Best German Actress award from Awards Européens du X) was speedy deleted (without AfD) based on lack of notability. I have recreated this article (a translation of the German Wikipedia article).

Does anybody know of a corresponding award (or awards) for the Japanese adult industry? Iamcuriousblue 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd think if there were equivalent awards in other countries, they would do for notability. The Japanese problem, so far as I can tell, is that there are no such equivalent awards. In their Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia: The Sex Films (p.507), the Weisser's mention an "Ona Pet Award" (Masturbation-Pet Award) in the mid '70s. This sounds like a novelty feature by a popular-culture magazine. This article is on an award ceremony which I could trace back just a couple years, and which also seems more of a novelty show than anything like a real appraisal of work in the field. This lack of any apparent equivalent in another country does result in (contemporary) American performers having at least one extra point for proving notability. Dekkappai 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the list of awards was never meant to be static. New recognizable awards may come along, certainly awards that are well-known in their respective locations would qualify.—Chidom ^talk  02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add the ones I've mentioned to the list in the next day or so, unless anybody has any objections, or unless we need to have a poll or something about it. Iamcuriousblue 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to adding this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me. Heck, put me in the "fully supportive" column! Tabercil 05:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Add 'em in - but can you also make articles for the awards themselves, so we know they're not just flash-in-the-pan awards, and have some history? Thanks. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, there are already articles on the Hot D'Or, the Venus Awards, and the successor the Venus Awards, the Eroticline Awards. I'll have to do a little digging for more info on the Awards Européens du X – its been held in Brussels for the last 15 years or more, so its not a fly-by -night thing. Iamcuriousblue 01:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate User:Vegaswikian's efforts to make maintenance of the criteria easier, I just feel it's better to list the awards here along with all the other criteria instead of having to go elsewhere to see what they are. I'd much rather update the list of awards here than have to worry about the categories being corrupted with the additions of awards that don't qualify. Also, awards that qualify may not have articles right away; they would then have to be manually added to the category page and then removed once an article was written.—Chidom ^talk  06:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That list was way too long for a guideline. I feel that by not having to update it on a regular basis, as new notable awards are added to the encyclopedia, we can spend more time on articles instead of guidelines. Vegaswikian 07:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chidom. As much as I am for keeping things simple, having the list is necessary, since there are some awards that probably don't pertain to this guideline. (For instance, I sincerely doubt that any porn star would receive an Political Film Society Award for Human Rights or Golden Globe Award.) Specificity is the name of the game here, in my view. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I kinda agree with both sides here. Yes the list was extensive and arguably a pointer to the award categories will be quite sufficient. However, we're talking porn stars here... if one were to win a Golden Globe award or any other mainstream award, they would be notable under general WP:BIO rules so I think we can drop the Category:Film awards. Yet I think for convenience there should be a mention of some of the awards on this page to show that they do have a definitive presence. Why not try and split the difference? Have a very short list mentioning the major players in the awards, and relegate the lesser players to be pointed to by the category. Why not something like this?:

1. Performer has won an award from:
   • Adult Video News (AVN Award) or Gay Adult Video News (GayVN Awards)
   • X-Rated Critics Organization
   • Hot D'Or
   • Venus Berlin (Venus Awards (1994–2004) and Eroticline Awards (2005–))
   • Any other award listed under Category:Adult movie awards

Would this be a suitable compromise? Tabercil 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In my view, no, for a couple of reasons. While I'm in agreement with the awards you've listed on the "short list" as being representative, it's still not a complete list and therefore isn't "world view" / NPOV.

If the list is too long to include in the guideline itself (an opinion contrary to my own), then there should be a link under that criterion to a list article, not a category.

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the information should be maintainable from one central location that's linked directly to this guideline. I'd prefer one link to a list article that gets updated as new awards are identified, rather than waiting for an article to be written about the award in order for it to be part of the criterion. There just aren't that many editors who are into "background" articles like this.—Chidom ^talk  01:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Chidom said it best. The issue here isn't the length of the guideline–since the guideline is actually shorter than most I've ever come across–but the specificity of the guideline. Specificity is more important than being short. If we simply link to a category, then this guideline becomes easy to exploit. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay Joe, you sold me fully with that last post. A full listing of awards then... maybe we can do it up as a multi-column listing?? Tabercil 04:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A two-column listing should suffice, in my view. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on Female adult bio info box

I've just added Female adult bio info box at the article on Miki Mizuno, a Japanese (non-pornographic) actress, with modeling/Idol activities. Because she was a model/idol in her early career, measurements are data that are included in profiles in Japanese sources. But still, she's not an "Adult" performer. Is it wrong to use this info box in this case? Is there another one that will serve in its place? Dekkappai 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice the Female adult bio box is also used for models like Harumi Nemoto‎, who do not perform in adult videos, and (as far as I know), do not pose nude. Nevertheless, their measurements and other "adult"-related data are pertinent to their biographies. Dekkappai 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This has actually come up before. To be honest, use the tools that are best to use; if it's the female adult bio infobox, then so be it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Thanks Joe. I was just wondering if there was any concern that we were implying the subject is an adult entertainer by using that template. But I guess not, if the text of the article doesn't. Dekkappai 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 7

I've recently seen PORNBIO#7 ("an original film named after the performer") used in contentious AFDs more than once. I even grudgingly closed one as "keep" per PORNBIO#7 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Jay). But on reflection I think it is too arbitrary and too easy of a criterion, not to mention way too easy to game if someone deliberately wants to get a Wikipedia article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 06:04Z

If a film is named after them, it demonstrates popularity of the performer since the producers believe their name sells the DVDs, videos, etc.. I don't see it as a "game the system" clause. --Oakshade 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Producers should not be given the exclusive right to grant notability to their actors. Any number of non-notable porn production firms can pump out any number of non-notable titles featuring non-notable performers. The "demonstrates popularity" argument is circular. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This was previously brought up at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(pornographic_actors)#disputed. Considering the number of people questioning this arbitrary criterion and the fallibility of the arguments for it, I hardly think that there is any sort of consensus to keep it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since criterion 7 does not uniformly apply to all pornographic publications and has demonstrated the potential to be abused by self-promotion, I've moved it under "Dubious methods of establishing notability" with the following explanation:

1. There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer.
   • Many small production companies and independent performers release original films to promote their own content. These include specialty DVDs that are only distributed online and attempts to publicize unknown performers. Without corroborating data which indicates a wide release or large number of sales, individual releases named after the performer may not signify anything other than amateur vanity productions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Prime example – Thursday Night Video, which names pretty much all of their videos after the girls in them. While TNV itself could be said to have a certain amount of critical acclaim, I don't think anybody would claim that Erin or Jolie or any of the TNV girls who's name grace the boxcover (except for Sarah Blake) are notable porn actresses. BTW, just because porn is "amateur" (I prefer the term "independent") doesn't mean its a vanity project. Iamcuriousblue 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, sorry, I did not mean to add "amateur" to imply any derogatory connotation. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anetode, I should have read the entire page including the earlier discussion, but I'm glad I brought it up again because I like your edit. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 21:24Z

Merge to Wikipedia:Notability (artists)

A thought to consider, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(artists)#Overlapping_with_similar_guidelines. Granted, that's only a proposal in the early stages, but it's rather strange we have a notability for pornographic actors, and none for actors or artists in general.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful idea in principle, but note this industry is rather extreme in the field in many ways: number of units produced, extremely low mainstream coverage relative to industry size, extremely high Internet coverage relative to industry size... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• How about a merge with the regular WP:BIO? Porn stars are, after all, people. I'm not quite sure why we should treat porn differently than non-porn. >Radiant< 11:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple: because there's more of a problem with non-notable porn actors. The notability guidelines only exist wherever there are actually problems: small garage bands, small companies, unknown porn actors who attempt to create their own fame through Wikipedia. Stevage 00:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but that doesn't explain why there's a whole separate page here, as opposed to a subsection on WP:BIO. >Radiant< 10:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Radiant's proposal to merge with WP:BIO, but it might be a good idea to list here what if any specific provisions should be added to that guideline to help determine the notability of persons who work in this genre. Inkpaduta 14:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree with Radian't proposal. Porn is too much of a topic-specific genre to be merged with WP:BIO. This is why this extensive notability guideline was created and expanded in the first place. --Oakshade 17:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, for example, WP:BIO says "A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following", so most people with hundreds of web pages on different sites devoted to them are generally considered notable due to having a large fan base. But for porn stars, those aren't fan pages, those are "porn entrepreneurs", who heard this is how to make a buck from the Internet, and don't actually know the star from Adam. For another example, WP:BIO says "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" and "enduring historical record of that field" - this criterion lists which awards really are sufficiently enduring and independent, there are lots of completely non-notable ones out there. WP:BIO says "Commercial endorsements" - the number of porn stars who have endorsed sex toys of negligible notability is vast. And so forth. Pornography is a sufficiently distinct field that, while the WP:BIO criteria should apply, they should be looked at from the point of view of this specific industry, and separating this list helps do that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I support the merge per Radiant's reasoning. I believe that the entertainer section at WP:BIO is a bit weak and could benefit by the inclusion of some of the better ideas here. --Kevin Murray 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements RfC

A Request for Comments has begun at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films. The basic issue is whether each name on the list has to be separately sourced or do the three websites given under the "References" heading suffice? Comments would be appreciated.—Chidom ^talk  03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Multiple appearances in mainstream media outlets" is not notable?

Question on the recent removal of one more criteria for "porn notability"-- Is multiple appearances in mainstream media outlets only "not notable" if the subject is a pornographic actor? Or need I even ask? Dekkappai 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems inconsistent with WP:N and WP:BIO. --Kevin Murray 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It was my understanding that WP:PORNBIO were extra criterion that indicated notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The secondary criteria should generally indicate cases in which it's likely that sufficient secondary source material exists, they're not exceptions to WP:ATT. Though, generally, mainstream media appearances will count as secondary source material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO criteria 'do not on their own establish notability'?

Can't this be changed? WP:PORNBIO is useless if the criteria don't establish notability on their own. Porn star articles, such as Sharday, are being deleted because the deleters claims the articles do not satisfy WP:BIO, despite satisfying WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a poorly written guideline which has little respect and should be merged to the entertaineer section of WP:BIO. --Kevin Murray 20:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• WP:PORNBIO is a good idea, but I agree that the criteria need to be changed. Simply being a playmate of the month or receiving a prominent award (things that are easy to verify) should be enough to satisfy the notability requirements. WP:PORNBIO exists because CNN isn't (typically) going to write an article about a porn star unless she dies, is featured in a major movie, etc. Thus, the notability requirements are different. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that disrobing and carnal acts justify a lower standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Porn movies are usually low budget with limited distributions. Why elevate the stature of the participants beyond actors in other genre with similar obscurity. --Kevin Murray 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think it's time PORNBIO be put to rest. It's trumped by WP:BIO (and more importantly, WP:V) and even after a year of discussion nobody seems to truly agree on what PORNBIO's criteria should be. It was given plenty of chance, and it just plain didn't work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Personally I feel WP:PORNBIO is useful more for the disallowed and dubious criteria than for the allowed criteria since it clearly states why they are not valid. If you can clearly show me that WP:BIO equally exclude said criteria by itself, then I'm happy. Tabercil 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nearly all pornstars are excluded by WP:BIO. Epbr123 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Uh-huh. Methinks I can possibly see an agenda here: you seek to pull out "nearly all" of the porn star articles, but WP:PORNBIO gives guidelines as to what does and does not constitute notability. So let's kill PORNBIO, then all those pesky lil' porn star articles that you mislike will disappear like dominoes in quick order. But that might be me jumping to an paranoiac conclusion. :) Tabercil 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Trust me, I don't dislike pornstar articles. I was just making the point that very few pornstars would pass WP:BIO because very few have multiple reliable and independent references. Epbr123 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see some validity here in concept, but not in practice. At AfD the standard to keep an article requires more substantial references than a frequently available for porn actors. Blogs and porn sites don't cut it at AfD. Personally I think that WP:N by itself is sufficient to protect against abuse. Can you site a situation where the standards here have been helpful in excluding an article which could not have been excluded under WP:N? --Kevin Murray 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In regard to Yulia Nova AFD (and Japanese based porn culture)

First, while I am going to believe in my keep vote, I am nto here to persuade you. rather, I want to discuss in regards of Wikipedia policy and items of other geographical location, particularly, those in Japan.

I guess the problem is that in Japan, Pornstars stay out of non-porn items, which may cause independent problems regard to this. As much as we like to believe that Japanese are very free, the truth is that it's not really. Hentai may be crossed over (made into anime, which by itself, I think, is notable), but very rarely would real life porn, if at all. Based on this, except for one porn star in Japan (which actually do additional modeling), there will basically be no asian porn stars... we may as well as chuck that category. Yulia Nova is an additional problem since she's a caucasian porn star that is only popular in Japan.

Furthermore, with the way that modern Japanese goes through their idols, porn stars, graveure models, anime and etc like an ADHD children, I am even surprise Gundam can still be as popular as it was before.

With today's AFD on Yulia Nova, and the AFD on Gundam that I had participated, I am beginning to wonder about how many Japanese culture articles that is easily violated with WP:N and WP policy... and the answer is a lot. Famistu gaming magazine, despite being the most popular gaming magazine in Japan and have very tough standards, is still exposed as nothing more then an advertising magazine, which makes their source less creditable. I am also certain that, should I have to, I can nominate Tokimeki Memorial, since let's be honest, it's not notable here, and Japanese sources are hard to verify. And obviously, except fro Sakura Sena, i am sure every pronstars that appear mainly in Japan is not going to satisfy WP:N and WP:PORNBIO.

I guess WP:N and WP:PORNBIO also need an overhaul, mainly on clarifying what constitute as Notability. The problem with WP:N is that it assumes all countries follow the same rule, which is obviously not the case. If they stated "Notable in English speaking countries", this may improve a bit. As for worldview, I think that was lost long ago, with color vs. colour. George Leung 22:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In trying to make sense of the above, George, I take it that you are trying to defend the Yulia Nova article by claiming that the other Japanese porn articles are not notable. While I agree that the Yulia Nova article should not be deleted-- I believe the concept of "Notability" is being abused at Wikipedia to delete articles on minor celebrities, rather than to keep out vanity pages, as it should-- I disagree with your characterization of Japanese porn culture. Pornography has traditionally had a very high notability in Japan, and continues to do so today. My research leads me to believe that the Japanese porn subjects are far more notable in their culture than their American counterparts are in theirs. For example: In 1994 it was reported that "approximately 14,000 "adult" videos were being made yearly in Japan compared with some 2500 in the U.S."[1]. Also, "In addition to the influence of pornography on mainstream cinema, the line between pornography and family entertainment, such as daytime television, is blurred. It is not uncommon in Japan for a waning female television star or singer to feature in pornographic videos. Similarly, there are women actors from pornographic videos who move into daytime television."[2]

There have been literally hundreds, if not thousands, of actresses appearing in Adult Videos in Japan yearly since the early 1980s. Taking out two general articles and four articles on pink film actresses, the English Wikipedia currently has 57 articles in Category:Japanese porn stars. Compare this to 67 such articles at Chinese Wikipedia, which has less than 117,000 articles total. Or better yet, compare the over 600 such articles at Japanese Wikipedia. In contrast, the extremely small number of Japanese porn articles at English Wikipedia, which are much better-sourced than the articles at Chinese or Japanese Wikipedia, are the subject of constant attempts at deletion. Though it appears to be porn in general which is undergoing an attack presently, it does your cause no good to attack other articles which could come up for AfD just as easily, and just as wrongly. Dekkappai 22:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"do not on their own establish notability"

I just noticed this sentence which was recently added, and slightly edit-warred over. Rather than contribute to this particular edit war, let's discuss it. I don't like it, it essentially negates the point of having this page, and doesn't go along with the other Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. For example

• Wikipedia:Notability (academics), the first one there, says "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable." This includes "received a notable award or honor", which is the first criterion in our page.
• The next one in that list Wikipedia:Notability (books) "A book is generally notable if it meets, with attribution in reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:" That also includes winning an award.
• Wikipedia:Notability (web) ... same thing.

This guideline is controversial enough just due to its subject matter, being attacked by both those who don't want any porn subjects in the encyclopedia, and those who don't want any restrictions on porn in the encyclopedia. It shouldn't be a test case for notability guidelines in other ways too. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• There was a small discussion about this a little further up on this page. Epbr123 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds good. My thoughts on the subject: I've always viewed someone's contributions as more notable than someone reporting those contributions; notability should be independent of what the general media reports on. That's all about verifyability, an entirely different policy. Instead, the more a pornographic actor or actress works, the more notable they are, especially if their work is widely distributed. Similarly, if an academic invents or discovers something really important, he or she is notable regardless of mainstream press coverage. I think what I'm trying to say is that WP:PORNBIO shouldn't try to be both WP:BIO and WP:V. It's an unattainable goal to expect most notable porn stars to be reported on in the mainstream press unless they've killed someone. That's why we have WP:PORNBIO-- to establish a useful criterion for notability that takes these difficulties into account. In summary: the sentence goes. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I like the "through reliable sources" part of the above criterion, but we should probably consider what defines a "reliable source" when it comes to porn before we use language like that on WP:PORNBIO. Just a thought. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, to what extent is a pornographic work a reliable source? It's a published work... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And is a pornographic work independent of the model or performer? Epbr123 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• The paragraph before the line in question establishes what would make a porn person notable ("subject has been covered by multiple sources which are independent of the article subject and are reliable"), which is basically in line with the established WP:BIO, WP:N, etc. The bulleted list after the line shows some situations showing that reliable sources likely exist (e.g. if the person has won awards), but none of the bulleted items suprecede the need to have reliable sources. Note that Wikipedia:Notability (books), Wikipedia:Notability (web), Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and all others require reliable sources as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, reliable sources are required to prove the criteria, I just don't like the "these criteria don't really mean anything" implication. I'd be happy with adding the reliable sources requirement following the Academics (and Books, and Web) model: "An erotic actor may be demonstrated as notable if they meet any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources". Agree? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Mmmm, delicious. Do it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me, but it will require that the criteria be looked at again. #3 and #5 are both about coverage by reliable sources anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Hurrah! That wasn't painful. :-). What do you want to look at again in the criteria? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Isn't 'An erotic actor or actress "may" be demonstrated as notable if they meet any one of the following conditions' just as bad as 'do not on their own establish notability'? Epbr123 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point. The policies above (books, academics) use more direct language. Although, I think that the current version is significantly better than "do not on their own..." —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • nicely done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

'a noteworthy news piece'

Regarding Valid criteria number 3, how is 'noteworthy' defined? For example, is this news piece about Kelly Madison classed as noteworthy? Epbr123 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

http://ainews.com/Archives/Story10622.phtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epbr123 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

• No. It's a press release, and even says so: "Source: BSG PR / by: Company Press Release" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, right. I hadn't spotted that. But if that wasn't a Press Release, would that kind of news be noteworthy? Epbr123 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean if by some bizarre miracle the New York Times or Washington Post picked up the story? I'd still say no, because it's just basically an announcement that a girl will appear in a booth at a trade show, which is hardly a notable occurance in any industry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I thought not. I think to reduce ambiguity there should be some examples of news stories which aren't noteable given under Valid criteria 3. Epbr123 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I concur in this instance... however, if you need it, there's always {{cite press release}} for more notable stories. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Are articles in pornographic magazines independent sources?

If a pornographic magazine wrote an article about one of their models, does that count as a piece of reliable and independent coverage? Epbr123 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd think so. While the magazine exists to show off a model, it's little different than a newspaper interviewing someone. Without the content, neither publication would survive. Admittedly, the porn mag has a slightly lower journalistic standard. Even so, it seems logical to me to include that as an independent source. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Would disagree, much like an article written by a newspaper about itself would be largely primary. The same issues we should watch for with self-publication (self-promotion, slanting) would apply to a company writing about its own employees, even if that happens to be in a magazine the company publishes. Publication by a source close to or affiliated with oneself makes the source primary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, so it's more of a newspaper:columnist relationship? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Even so, I'd think that it would be somewhat independent. They may pay her, but they'll still give you information about her. They're just not entirely independent in the way they do it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • An article about (as opposed to BY) a NY Times reporter in the New York Times would serve as part of the evidence for notability. But in a lesser publication (like a college paper or a small town shopper's guide or a church newspaper) a similar ariticle would be les impressive. There could be a lack of independence in the pornography magazine promoting its hired model with a feature article. It would certainly show more notability than a similar model who lacked such a feature article, but I would like to see additional independent coverage outside the magazine which has her pictures in it anyway.Edison 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do magazine appearances count towards establishing notability?

Does having many appearances in pornographic magazines or having an appearance in a well known pornographic magazine establish notability? Epbr123 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The latter, no. Playboy, clearly the best known, sometimes has ten or twenty models in a monthly issue, especially if they're running one of their "Girls of Name-A-College" or similar, and the others are similar. One appearance generally isn't that notable. The former - sometimes. It has been used to help indicate notability when there really are a lot of appearances, but I'm not sure it's enough of an established criterion to add it to the list. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a model appearing in only one photo in a pictorial essay on "The Girls of Whatever..." doesn't on its own establish any kind of notability. But what about multiple magazine covers, and appearances in photo layouts in which the model is the star, if not sole feature? It seems that film/video-actor notability criteria are being used for magazine models in some cases. And it seems reasonable to claim that a magazine model establishes notability as a magazine model through appearances in magazines-- and the occasional foray into video is only further evidence of notability, if video is not her prime claim to fame. Dekkappai 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Porn channel TV presenters

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Lexx, should being the presenter of a porn channel TV programme be included as valid criteria? Epbr123 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, especially for the larger networks. We do seem to have a large number of articles on news anchors, which seems a similar sort of thing. Category:Television_journalists, Category:Broadcast news analysts (and they're not all of the level of Walter Cronkite and Harry Reasoner; I could well believe that a Playboy channel presenter reaches more people than a news anchor in a local market). But are there that many of them that it will come up often? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AF Amy

There is no Air Force Amy "rule". (A) this is a guideline not a rule. (B) the AF Amy AfD was not conclusive and clearly does not set an precedent.

Heh. User:Freakofnurture/WP:AMY. It is a precedent that gets referred to just a bit, yes... [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ... even [12] (which is just a joke reference, but still.) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The essay carries no weight as a guideline, policy, or rule. Multiple improper citations only compound the error and is certainly not rational justification for inclusion. --Kevin Murray 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

True that the essay doesn't have weight, but did you notice the history it documents? That case formalized a precedent. That precedent has been consistently followed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Swan was fairly recent. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

AEM, Maria Swan doesn't seem to have anything to do with Porn Acting. She appears to be a model at best. I don't see any relevance to this discussion nor the AF Amy "rule". This example just points to the overall confusion regarding this topic at AfD. Maria would fail WP:N and WP:BIO and should not have been kept based on the WP:PORN, which was not applicable. --Kevin Murray 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be made clearer that WP:PORNBIO is just a guide as to which criteria have established notability in the past, mainly during AfD discussions. I suspect that some editors outside of Wikiproject:Porn see WP:PORNBIO as a list of criteria that have been arbitrarily made-up. It may gain more respect if it is explained better what it actually is.

I would like to propose changing:

"An erotic actor or actress is demonstrated as notable if they meet any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources:"

to

"In past AfD discussions, an erotic actor or actress has generally been demonstrated as notable if they have met any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources:"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Epbr123 (talk • contribs) 13:24, March 23, 2007

Seems reasonable. I'd even support a small section with a couple of sentences explaining the need for and the origins of these guidelines. Let's give it a bit more time to see what others think. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems resonable to me as well. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One Afd 14 months ago in which 5 editors said "Keep" hardly seems to be the basis for claiming it is a "rule," which implies policy level weight. I have to agree with Kevin Murray on this.Edison 20:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's kind of silly to put it in a guideline with a name like that. >Radiant< 08:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but that portion of the guideline has been in there for an extended period of time. It is not uncommon to included actual incidents to explain how to deal with specific rules. So far I fail to see a consensus for changing this portion of the guideline either here or from the editors who have reverted this change. As I said in my last revert, if this is going to be changed, you need to establish consensus here. Clearly there is no consensus in this discussion. If it exists it is very muddled and far from clear. Given the length of time that the change was in the guideline, its removal needs to be discussed with a clear consensus to remove being show. That is clearly not the case here. I for one don't seen any points presented above that say I could support a change in the guideline. Given that section of the guideline should stay. Vegaswikian 17:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure but from looking at Kevin Murray's recent edits of WP:PORNBIO, it seems like he's in favour of valid criteria 5 but not in favour of it being referred to as the Air Force Amy rule. Epbr123 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. The statement: "Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" is reasonable, but in essence just a slightly more restrictive version of the primary criterion, which does not specify that the media be "mainstream." What does the word "outlet" mean? The word media should suffice. I don't strongly object to line 5, but don't see that it adds to clarity. --Kevin Murray 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a slight difference between the two. 'Notable mainstream media outlets' aren't necessarily independent of the model or performer. Epbr123 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You are literally correct, but independence of sources is a cornerstone of WP, so without independence the source would likely fail even as a reference for text. --Kevin Murray 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Invalid criteria

I object to listing the invalid criteria; however, if we have to list these, there should be no distinction between disputed criteria and rejected criteria. Unless the guidelines are supported by the WP community they have no standing. Including maybe criteria creates problems at AfD. --Kevin Murray 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They're still important in the sense that they have been seriously considered and discussed. See Wikipedia:Search engine test for an entire page that is not a guideline, but still highly useful. The difference between disputed and rejected is that there are strong arguments each way for the disputed ones, they're just not as simple. For example, a pre-Internet era performer that made 100 films will generally be kept as a notable, as a large part of the ease of making and distributing huge numbers of films came with the Internet. Before then, there weren't nearly as many "films" floating around. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would have no objections to collapsing the questionable and dubious criteria into one category. Now whether that new category should be called "questionable" or "invalid" is the sticky part. I would prefer "questionable", especially since we've given explanations as to why each criteria has problems with being used for AFDs. Thoughts from the peanut gallery?? Tabercil 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with "Questionable," which implies that the validity of the notability criteria depend on circumstances particular to the subject. "Invalid" implies they are not to be considered at all, ever. Dekkappai 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But some criteria, such as an IMDb article, should not to be considered at all. I think it should either stay as it is or make decisions about whether the questionable criteria are valid or invalid. Epbr123 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the all-or-nothing approach is that the questionable criteria are important, but only under certain circumstances. Thus, they're "questionable." —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be possible to use an all-or-nothing approach if it specified in which circumstances the criteria are valid. Epbr123 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

An IMDB listing is not a criterion for notability. However, it is used as a source at hundreds of film articles on Wikipedia. Why should pornographic subjects be any different? Dekkappai 22:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Pornographic subjects shouldn't be treated differently: a porn film is still a film; which is why it's called a porn film and not something else. I agree, the IMDb should not be used as a source, just like other Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as sources; but if a porn film, or any other type of movie is on the IMDb; it shouldn't be too difficult to cross-reference it to find another source. Acalamari 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's questioning the reliability of IMDb. Its just that being included in IMDb does necessarily mean someone is notable. Epbr123 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what we've been saying, I think. The simple fact that a name is listed at IMDB doesn't count as notability. A subject having a listing of film and magazine appearances should count though, whether it's at IMDB or in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I honestly don't see where anyone is claiming a listing at IMDB, in and of itself, proves notability. Dekkappai 23:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to Acalamari. Epbr123 23:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I know no one was questioning the IMDb's reliability; and yes I agree, it shouldn't be used as a way to say that someone is notable. There are people on the IMDb who are notable for it, but not for Wikipedia. Someone who is listed on the IMDb, but played the role of an uncredited extra would not qualify them for an article on Wikipedia. Acalamari 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. When you said "I agree, the IMDb should not be used as a source,", I assumed you meant it was unreliable. Apparently, not. Epbr123 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a lot about the IMDb that is unreliable; such as trivia about movies, and the biographies of the people listed; but I believe the IMDb is accurate when it comes to listing the films someone has been in/directed/written. Even so, the IMDb shouldn't be used as a source. Acalamari 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded rude. I've only just found out you're only 16. Should you really be hanging around this part of Wikipedia? Epbr123 03:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What, you didn't look at porn when you were 16? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I never publicly encouraged it though. Epbr123 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I really don't see too many criteria here that don't come back to requiring non-trivial secondary sourcing, as all of the claims there do have to be sourced. (And in the unlikely event that someone were to win awards but not receive source coverage for it, we really shouldn't have the article. With what can we write it? "X won Y award", and that's it?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree but at AfD discussions whether or not an has non-trivial secondary sourcing never seems to affect the outcome. WP:PORNBIO is just a list of criteria that have affected AfD discussions in the past. Epbr123 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If the purpose is to show precedents rather than to describe separate standards, then the appropriate location for these is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. --Kevin Murray 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The only notability rule for biographies is that they require non-trivial, reliable, indepedent secondary sourcing. We don't have the power to set further standards, we can only note which short-cuts have been accepted by consensus in the past to estimate the existance of non-trivial, reliable, indepedent secondary sourcing. Epbr123 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I substantially agree with that statement; however, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is the accepted place to display those precedents. --Kevin Murray 18:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Why not display it in both places? I'd say that "common outcomes" and "community standards" are one and the same. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Not necessarily. An AfD outcome is the outcome of a subset of the community, namely those members who chose to participate in that particular AfD. Consensus can also change-sometimes, an article which would have been kept a year ago is now deleted, and vice versa. Obviously, we can only judge single AfD's in the context of who participated then and what they said, but we shouldn't attempt to judge future ones by that metric. Otherwise, you get a feedback loop-it happens a few times, then it gets placed into a guideline, which makes it more likely to happen next time. Guidelines should reflect a much wider segment of the community then any AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Kevin Murray added a tag saying "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed." - is the intention to dispute the status of the whole thing, or merely the phrasing of one or a few criteria? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Kevin Murray is the only one seriously disputing it. I have some qualms with it as well, but they go in the opposite direction of KM's beliefs. I think after a certain number of widely distributed films, you're notable, that an exceedingly low number of Google hits for a recent porn star is generally non-notable, and a high number of hits for a porn star that was famous before the internet is generally notable (with qualifications, of course). Of course, those are all in the "Invalid criteria" now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that in each of the cases that you describe, there should be some verifiable source material. How can you write an article that meets verifiability standards without having sources? And if you have sources the notability of the article is thus established. I don't oppose inclusion of porn actors at WP, but I do oppose having standards which elevate them to greater stature than other entertainers. I would just as strongly oppose more restrictive standards. --Kevin Murray 20:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there generally is sufficient verifiable source material to write a short article on stars that meet the criteria, as they generally coincide with having a sizeable fan base, and the stars or their studios or magazine will put up a short biography with birth date and place, a few personal notes and physical details. It's very rare that a star will win awards, or sell lots of movies, without having magazine articles or web sites. But the reverse is not true, plenty of not notable stars have short bios on web sites. This is precisely the difference between Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but that's where the "non-trivial" issue comes into play. I'm not excited about the way that we have defined notability elsewhere with a subjective term such as non-trivial, but the other attempts here at PORN and elsewhere are equally subjective, and in at least one case the word "notable" is used in the definition of itself - circular logic. At minimum this guideline needs a logic review. --Kevin Murray 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the wording changes. The last one changes the meaning of the mainstream media outlets criterion, though, so I think the word mainstream is important, not just credible. They're not synonymous - the Howard Stern show is far less credible than a porn magazine, for example, since it goes out live, while the latter has editorial review. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Award Nominees

At the moment, it says that a performer is notable if she has won an award. Given the large number of porn stars and the smalll number of awards, is it not also an indication of notability if one is a nominee/semifinalist (e.g., a "short list" for that award)? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Epbr123 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would support that concept as long as it doesn't open the door too wide. However, I still think that if the sources are there to write more than a stub, then you've got the notability regardless of the placement in the competition. --Kevin Murray 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree unless someone could give an example of how many such nominees there are for each award and how many awards are considered important enough. My concern is creating an extremely low bar for some category of endeavor. If someone is nominated or an Academy award that is pretty major, but such people will have numerous articles about them before that ever happens. If anyone in an industry can nominate someone they wish to promote, that just makes Wikipedia their handy advertising platform. Edison 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think only the AVN Awards and FAME Awards would be important enough. You can find a list of nominees for this years AVN Awards here and a list of FAME Awards nominees here. Some catgories seem more notable than others. Most of the AVN Award nominees already have Wikipedia articles except for the nominees in the 'Best New Starlet' category. The bar seems to be a bit low for the FAME Award nominees. Maybe only the FAME Award finalists should be included. Epbr123 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Just the AVN and FAME nominees (instead of all nominees) sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure how to go about phrasing that in the guideline, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Only one of the 38 female FAME Award finalists from last year doesn't already have an article. Epbr123 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree. This would set the bar far too low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think actually winning an award should be the "bright line". There are quite a few awards, even just from the AVN Awards. Being nominated could be part of an argument for notability, but shouldn't be the whole thing.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It also needs to be clearer which award winners count. For example, would winning Score magazine 'Newcomer of the Year' count? Epbr123 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• There may not be all that many organisations giving out awards, but I disagree with the assertion that there are too few awards, and that therefore we should include nominees. Just looking, for example, at the AVN awards: I am flabberghasted how many awards categories there are. For every video award, there is a DVD one! Then there are the best (US) and "Foreign" awards, best scene awards, Best solo/couple/three-way/group sex scene, Best [name your fetish here] Award. There are even "Best packaging", "best marketing" Awards. I am not necessarily saying that they are not merited, but some are clearly worth more than others. Perhaps we should consider restricting this to certain "major categories" Ohconfucius 06:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • When it comes to female pornstars, most of the AVN Award nominees already have Wikipedia articles which had previously passed other pornbio criteria. This shows that including AVN nominees doesn't set the qualifying level too low. The only female pornstar category where there aren't already articles for most nominees is 'Best New Starlet'. Maybe just this one should be excluded due to the stars being too early in their career to count as notable. Epbr123 10:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Tag part 2

If the changes we are working on can stabilize to consensus, I think that we can combine some of the line-items to streamline the presentation. I believe that less is more. I'd like to then incorporate these concepts for the entertainer category at BIO, for continuity. --Kevin Murray 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarity and conciseness are good attributes in a guideline. I'd wait a while to see if there is consensus here for those changes. I think there will be consensus but editors will need to think about the changes for a while. In any case, I don't believe that the guideline is disputed but rather some minor points might have issues. We also need to take a hard look at 'Questionable criteria'. I think this heading needs to go. For now, I'd include the item in it with the criteria that is accepted pending additional discussion. Vegaswikian 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegas, I agree that the questionable item should go either way, to valid or invalid, as questionable category does us no good at all. --Kevin Murray 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with the dispute. Nothing establishes notability but for having sufficient secondary source material to write a comprehensive article. Number of films, while it may be a good rule of thumb as to when such sourcing is likely to exist, does not establish notability if it in fact does not. The same is true of all the other criteria. As the guideline is currently written, it makes it sound like poorly-sourced articles which simply mention that the subject has won an award are acceptable. They are not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should insist all porn star articles meet the primary notability criteria and the purpose of WP:PORNBIO can be to clarify, in the case of porn stars, what counts as reliable, non-trivial, independent sources. For example, clarify whether IMDb biographies are trivial, whether porn mag articles are reliable and independent, which awards are non-trivial etc. Epbr123 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with Kevin that as it stands now, the questionable section should move in either direction. Given how the invalid section reads right now, I would fold the questionable segment into it. Maybe make bullet number four at the end of the invalid section and snug the "original film" bit in afterwards? You'd need to rework the text a little to make sense. Tabercil 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I removed this and moved a highly reworded version upwards. I added 'not a first film' and by a 'notable studio'. Both of these should should ensure that there are reliable sources, at least about the film, making this item sufficent to establish that we should have an article. I think this is a good compromise for it to be listed in valid criteria. If consensus says it should not be there, so be it. Vegaswikian 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) The "Questionable criteria" heading existed before the "original film" bit. I don't know who added the "However it could contribute to notability"(paraphrase) clause, but it made absolutely no sense. A performer's notability is not contingent entirely on whether a film includes their name and PORNBIO criteria should not imply that sort of uneven logic. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I gather from all this that the dispute is not about whether this should be a guideline, but the details of it. Therefor I'll remove the tag from the page as a whole, if you really want, you can put a {{disputedpolicy}} |section=yes similar tag on the specific section you contest. I'll cite JzG in Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Disputed_status_tag who did much the same thing on that page, WP:N, the "spiritual grandparent" of this one. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is no broad based support for this being an independent guideline. Yes, I have been active in helping to improve it, but I still believe that a merger to WP:BIO is the better solution. --Kevin Murray 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Then how about we replace that tag with a {{merge}}, as more specifically representing your view? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I would prefer that this be cleaned up more before proposing a merger. --Kevin Murray 16:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If a subject -specific guideline such as this, or the ones for schools, religious congregations, etc are merged with more general guidelines, it is a good idea to preserve the kernal of the subject guideline.Edison 18:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with that statement. Can we identify what encompasses the kernal? My thoughts are that there is still some redundancy in the text and a bit of over-explanation. --Kevin Murray 18:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Well this is just my own personal opinion, but I always felt this guideline was more useful in that it stated what was not valid criteria to consider for articles. So if some of the non-notable criteria can be clearly tied into the existing lists of what is not notable, then they can be cleared. For instance, lets take #4 - the IMDB/IAFD clause. Could this already be covered by WP:NOT#DIR's statement that "Wikipedia is not the white pages"? Or alternately, can our clauses that argue against notability be folded into the larger criteria? Would the IMDB rule be useful in the larger WP:BIO article? Otherwise I can see an article being created that says in its entirity: "John Wromwood is an American actor. His most notable role was the fourth redshirt to be killed by the Asthirk in episode 187 of Star Dreck". Tabercil 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationale and need for this guideline

Please review this new section on the main page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that AEM's message is a good idea. However, I condensed the writing a bit, hopefully without diluting the meaning. --Kevin Murray 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An excellent addition. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't oppose the inclusion of AEM's rationale section. I think that the following paragraph goes to far in pushing the point and is time-period sensitive, rather than a valid long-term statement appropriate for inclusion in a guideline. The debate belongs here at the talk page, whether the statistics are valid or not.

The issue of a porn star's notability comes up often in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD) discussions. Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced demonstrates this guideline being referred to an average of once every two days for five months, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars/Deletion shows that this trend continues.

--Kevin Murray 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

General notability guideline template

Since the general notability guideline is central to most sub-pages, someone came up with the idea of creating a centralized template which will be consistent among the permutations from WP:N. Please see whether we can make this work here. The text is meant to be fairly generic, but it may make sense to add text following the template for fine tuning, or help us to make the template more applicable if it is not reflecting the consensus for notability. I certainly didn't get everything that I wanted, but I'm very happy to see the compromises that make this a fairly representive of the attitude of the project. --Kevin Murray 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That template is greatly in flux. Originally, just earlier today, it itself basically reverted the consensus we only recently achieved in the #"do not on their own establish notability" section, above. Now it itself is fine, but the text below it goes against that. I've nothing against the template as it reads now, but I do want the supporting text to reflect what we agreed to there. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with your position. I fine tuned your language a bit to tie more closely to the template. I don't think that we will see much more flux. I was seeking a less stringent standard in the template, but had to give in to an obvious consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 01:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The template simply does not belong here. It should be discussed here first before being added. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than opposing a template which brings continuity to the various sections of the notability infrastructure, why not help to develop language at the template which more clearly relfects the consensus. How can we make the template better? --Kevin Murray 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the existance of this guideline is because many (probably most) "notable" pornagraphic performers are not the subject of non-trival published works as the mainstream press, documentarians, biographers, etc. simply don't cover people of this ilk. That's why the guideline was established. Alternative criteria was deemed nessesary. This proposed tag insertion contradicts the primary reason for the guideline. --Oakshade 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it both ways: (1) that this is here for greater inclusion and (2) to prevent overinclusion under the "looser" guidelines at BIO. Regardless, I really don't see how we can be supporting articles where the sources are dubious in terms of independence, attribution, and verifiability. Why is it incumbent on WP: to cover this genre with deeper exposure than other forms of entertainment? In other sub-guidelines the PNC is quoted and then there is a list of special cases, generally where it is assumed that more sufficient information is assumed to exist even if it hasn't yet been documented. --Kevin Murray 20:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is consensus for adding the PNC template and moving this guideline to me more in line with WP:N. See talk page at WP:N. --Kevin Murray 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • With respect, you actually proposed deleting this guideline at WP:N, not moving it. Even your statements there aren't in support of this, much less "consensus". It's fairly clear that there are at least 3 people objecting to your move, and few or even none supporting. That's not consensus. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's just not true. There are two pertinent discussions at WP:N: (1) encourages deletion or merger to BIO, but at least conformance with N and BIO, and (2) a discsussion at WP:N which has consensus for using the template throughout the sub pages. There are certainly several vocal opponents; although they are in the minority. Working to improve this guideline is not mutually exclusive to efforts to merge or eliminate it. If it is to exist it should be improved. If you look at the current language at the template along with the following paragraph which is copied from BIO, I think that you will see that it allows a great deal of flexibility which is consistent with the prior version of this sub-page. Please think about it before a knee-jerk reaction. --Kevin Murray 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You can assert whatever you want until the cows come home at WP:N - until you get consensus at the page in question that you're trying to change, you're not going to get anywhere. Plus, if there even was a consensus at WP:N for what you assert, I'm certainly not seeing it and voraciously challenge it, not to mention that, again, that consensus wouldn't apply to the other guidelines where the discussion hasn't occured and consensus hasn't been reached. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Relationships not qualification

While this argument makes sense, should we delete the article on Sophie, The Countess of Wessex as well since the only reason she's included in Wikipedia is because of her husband? Alvis 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that you make a very good point. I don't agree with this criterion as an absolute. Certainly every relationship with a notable person does not impart notability, but the more notable the person involved with or the aspects of the relationship, the more notable the subject. This is a consistent expectation throughout WP and is certainly neither unique to porn, nor necessary for mention here as a special case. --Kevin Murray 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I can think of lots of little rules that could help (dating for longer than X, news coverage on them as a couple...) but I don't want to drown the entry in details. Can anyone think of a short, general rule for this sort of thing? Alvis 07:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Enough coverage of the person to make it non-trivial. A few stories which are really about John Smith, and just add a sentence at the end "and he is dating Jane Jones" do not cover it. A couple of stories about the relationship which do go into detail about Jane Jones do. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)

This section has been copied from WP:N talk because it is clearly pertinent to this page and should receive broader participation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 14:56, April 12, 2007

The way to do that is to link there, not to copy the section. If you copy, some people will respond in each place, and the discussion will be all over the place. Vis: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Wikipedia:Notability_.28pornographic_actors.29

Also note that that discussion seems to have stopped for 2 weeks. But I responded there anyway since you feel it should be reopened. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a rigid right and wrong way to do it. And I belive that it is inappropriate to modify someone's posting to a talk page right or wrong, without discussion with them. But if your action yields broader discussion I'll go with it. If not I will return the text here. Remember this precedent when we decide where and how consensus regarding changes to this page should be measured. --Kevin Murray 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I again request that you stop attempting to add tags to guideline pages without gaining consensus for the actions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of being a constant disruption, why don't you look at the growing consensus and stop arbitrarily reverting our progress. Anon clearly supported a compromise and that is very indicative of consensus. --Kevin Murray 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't. One or two people don't make a consensus, and it may be as much as people being worn down by your now week-long crusade, which has succeeded in only one actual guideline without significant protest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's disruptive to impose a major change that there's not consensus for. --Oakshade 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, I'm also worried by your "death of a thousand cuts" approach. I thought we had reached agreement about the #"do not on their own establish notability" bit with the discussion on this talk page, above, but you're still editing the page in defiance of that, and starting new discussions on this same issue in different places and different pages. I'm not sure you're genuinely trying to reach agreement, or just edit warring and forum shopping. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to bring the discussion from WP:N here, but you put it back there. I'm not forum shopping; the notability infrastructure should be one forum. --Kevin Murray 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If it should be, again, there's no consensus for it. So quit trying to force it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You have no logical opposition to the changes other than sheer blunt objection to new ideas and continuity. The latest proposed change has no negative effect on your purpose, but allows for a consistent message between BIO and PORN. --Kevin Murray 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, you're discussing deleting page A on the talk page for page B. If your argument is really to delete all the subpages of notability, then WP:N is a fine place to discuss it, but you are splitting your efforts between that and targeting this subpage primarily. You even say there are multiple places on that talk page you're discussing this, but don't link to it, and imply it's our job to follow you around wherever you go, and if by chance we miss one, you cry "aha, consensus!". Hence the death of a thousand cuts - if you can't get your way one way, you'll try for another, and when several people show up to argue against it, you don't try to convince them, but just wait a week for them to get tired, then edit the page yourself. Stop. Convince first, edit later. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon, let me clarify my goals: (1) to provide easy to follow non conflicting instructions for editors and participants at AfD. (2) To do this with the fewest number of pages and the least practical amount of text at the necessary pages. I am not specifically opposed to any sub-page if it fits these goals. I have not in any way singled out this page. If you look at the recent history of BIO, you will see that many good ideas from this page, PROF, and the Artist proposal have been included there. This not only strengthened the argument for merging PROF and PORN into BIO, but made for a much clearer and useful guideline for many groups of people. Interacting here has made me much more sympathetic to the need for clarity for this topic, but I think that the clarity can be provided by amending BIO, rather than having an entire separate page. --Kevin Murray 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Laudable goal, but the way you're going about it is making enemies, rather than consensus. You also seem to assume everyone agrees with it, when that is what you are trying to prove. Let's pick one sentence from WP:BIO, which presumably you believe matches something from WP:PORNBIO: "Multiple features in credible news media." There, you've just made every professional journalist notable enough for inclusion ... while you have not made Air Force Amy notable, since the tawdry talk shows she appeared on can not be honestly described as credible. Let's find another: "Entertainers ... Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." There, that's the 100 film rule, certainly prolific contributions, no? In fact, even 12 would be "prolific" for most actresses in other fields.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon, have you heard the saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee? It is a failure in any democratic institution that compromise breeds a strange end-product, but autocracy sacrifices too much in the interest of consistency. Civilizations have constantly failed at making rules, so how are we to persevere at WP? I’m not here to make friends, although that might be nice from time to time. The point is to do what is best for WP which I believe to be the most important project to come from the internet. All children who can access a computer have the world of knowledge at their fingertips. It’s a cause worth fighting for, and stepping on a few toes for. I see danger from over inclusion and under inclusion, the former can tarnish our credibility and accuracy, the latter will stifle enthusiasm of the contributors and leave holes in the knowledge base. --Kevin Murray 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is not meant to be a "consistent message" with BIO. My objections come from many areas - the lack of consensus for an overriding guideline, the lack of consensus for major changes to individual guidelines, the wording in the template which fails to address issues at each guideline, etc. I have no problem with new ideas, as I'm sure you're aware if you're actually paying attention to the discussions you're apparently involved in, so perhaps you should focus less on force and demeaning your opponents and more on getting support for your point of view. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff you seem to be very receptive to new ideas if they are proposed by you, but have demonstrated little capacity for compromise or acceptance of other peoples ideas. My efforts here and at other sub-pages over several months represent much compromise and steady progress. I've not seen much participation by you at the sub-pages until you began to oppose the template as aggressively as I have tried to promote it, here and at other sub-pages. I'll admit that I'm impatient for progress, but please don't cloak yourself in some type of superior moral position. I think that your goal is to bring down notability so that you can resurect you failed WP:AI project. --Kevin Murray 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you don't really understand me that well, not that you've shown that in your comments toward me the last week or so. You haven't been right about me yet, and this latest one is just another one in a long list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to be wrong. Sadly, this is how I have seen it. I realize that I get too enthusiastic sometimes and should be more cautious as well. We clash but we do inspire people in both good and bad ways. I'll try harder to see the better Jeff, which I am seeing in your last proposal at WP:N talk; a true move toward consensus building which may have me opening my eyes and eating my recent words. --Kevin Murray 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I'm critical of your continued assertions about me - this is hardly the first time I've tried to organize thoughts in order to find a consensus. So less judgement and more productivity, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge!

Hi.

I think this should get merged with WP:BIO -- we need less rulecruft. A small number of clear, well-written rules are superior to a large number of poorly-written and confusing, possibly contradictory rules, which can require significant and difficult studying to get any sort of meaning out of. See also WP:CREEP and WP:BUREAUCRACY. This is really a special case of WP:BIO and I fail to see why it really needs to be elaborated on. I'd suggest a merge with WP:BIO and if this page is to be kept at all it should be purely historical. mike4ty4 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seconded. But I believe this has been discussed in the past and several people dissent. >Radiant< 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• A merge is inappropriate for a number of reasons listed above. I still haven't been convinced that needs to change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think WP:PORNBIO is poorly-written, confusing or contradictory. If this was moved onto the special case section of the WP:BIO page, the "rules" wouldn't be any different. Does it really matter whether the rules are written here or on WP:BIO? Epbr123 13:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, some of the criteria for other special case professions on WP:BIO seem to be very ambiguous and do need to be elaborated on, for example, "has a large fan base", "regarded as an important figure" and "wide name recognition". It's those that are poorly-written and confusing. Epbr123 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • How could BIO be improved to reduce your concerns? --Kevin Murray 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • How big does a fan base have to be to be "large" and how is the size of a fan base measured? What is the definition of an "important figure"? How wide is "wide name recognition" and how is name recognition measured? Epbr123 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thirded. (Is that a word?) This doesn't need merged to BIO so much as redirected to it, or to be tagged historical and direct people there. We don't need special criteria for porn stars, they can pass or fail on the same criteria as anyone else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The reason this was created was because the community saw a need for a specific criteria for porn stars. What changed in terms of need? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd like to know what the rationale is, to see if it needs to be thrust back into the fire of dispute if a problem is found. The thing is that we should avoid rulecruft. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. What sets porn stars apart from any other case of WP:BIO? Should we also make a page on regular movie stars, then? How about for every single profession imaginable? That would obviously suck. I mean, could you really expect someone to read through dozens and dozens of pages of guidelines and rules? How could you keep track of all those? And it goes against what Wikipedia is! mike4ty4 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Pro-porn users would be delighted if porn star articles weren't treated differently. Most porn stars would pass WP:BIO by having made "prolific contributions to a field of entertainment". Epbr123 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Did you mean prolific or prophylactic contribution? --Kevin Murray 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Could be, but I imagine most of them would still fail the primary guideline, which would render that moot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Which shows that porn stars are a special case. Epbr123 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Not at all, shows they fit the general case. "Do they fit BIO? If so, do they fit N?" Both questions would work just fine, the byzantine network of sub-guidelines is not necessary at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • They are a special case because they are entertainers who don't fit the entertainer criteria on WP:BIO. Epbr123 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • Also, articles that pass WP:BIO don't usually have to also pass WP:N as passing the WP:BIO criteria is meant to indicate that reliable secondary sources are likely to be available. Having to pass both defeats the purpose of WP:BIO. Epbr123 00:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Yet another reason why the primary guideline is a horrid idea in practice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I doubt they would be that delighted, or more importantly that such a thing would have significant negative consequences for WP. You might as well say that pro-gory movie advocates would be delighted when articles about actors/actresses in violent films are subject to the same criteria as any other biography. But we don't have a Wikipedia:Notability (violent film stars) page, do we? Should we make that too? Naah, it just creates too much rulecruft and creep. mike4ty4 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

An important consideration as part of a merger or redirect is the depth of coverage which is desirable for this topic. In essence, what is the encyclopedic nature of pornographic actors? If it is desirable to develop an in depth coverage of this topic, then there needs to be separate standards for both inclusion or exclusion. The nature of this industry makes the typical measurements of notability incompatible. However, if it is not deemed appropriate to make pornography a special field of emphasis then there is no need to treat a porn-actor any differently than with the standards of BIO. --Kevin Murray 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like our conversation has died. It seems that we have more people in agreement with the merger, but no where near a full representation of the recent participants. I suport the merge as long as concerns can be addressed at BIO. --Kevin Murray 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am unconvinced of the need for or desirability of a merger in this case. Yes, centralisation and consistency are good. But, this guideline specifically and concisely addresses a niche topic. Let's not forget that as we try to reduce "rulecruft" by merging into WP:BIO, we bloat and reduce the effectiveness of WP:BIO itself. I haven't participated in the previous discussions (I read through the 3 threads above just now) and only ran across this discussion while trying to {{prod}} the article of a pornographic actress. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see how it would reduce WP:BIO's effectiveness in any way. Anyway, here's a second idea, other than a merge: How about if we were to just de-guideline WP:PORN BIO and turn it into a historical page, and then fix WP:BIO to remedy whatever problems WP:PORN BIO was concieved to try and remedy? This would not "bloat" WP:BIO much, and would remove the rulecruft. Plus it could be much more powerful since it would address the general concerns themselves, and not just treat a specific case. A small number of clearly defined, consistent, unambiguous, objective, precise guidelines with little room for interpretation are superior to a huge number of ill-defined, inconsenstent, ambiguous, redundant, subjective, imprecise, confusing and excessive guidelines with lots of room for interpretation and lawyering. All this bureaucracy is the problem, and having so many guidelines increases the chances of them all getting confused and falling over each other, creating a mess. mike4ty4 20:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am equally happy with either merging or Mike's proposal. If merged, only the core ideas should go to BIO. There is no need or all of the peripheral discussion, examples etc. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes should be used for examples from actual AfD outcomes. --Kevin Murray 12:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the debate. --Kevin Murray 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy change at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Centerfolds

The other day I ran into an article on an old playmate (Jan Roberts) that I mistook for one of those things that just slipped under the radar for a year, and I promptly tagged it.

Heh.

Turns out, they all have articles. This agrees with a parenthetical remark now on this page that having been playmate of the month is, by itself, enough. I went through this talk page and the archives, and I still don't get it, and it sort of looks like I'm not the only one. I mean, sure, it's not everyone who appears in playboy, but, well, that's not the point. It's still a single source, and at that, a source that's, well, not all that concerned about biography. Now, if they'd appeared in something else as well, that might be different, but it sure looks like there are playmate articles that have this single-weak-source problem.

Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I missed this the first time, thanks for notifying. This is ultimately about notability - being a playmate of the month is notable, so I think it should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff. The topic was included prior to recent edits to the guideline, but is more clear now. It should not heave been removed without discussion. --Kevin Murray 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Being a Playmate is considered a big enough achievement in itself to be worthy of an article; it's an award. Specifically in the world of pornography, it is considered a very high award, a Playmate or Penthouse Pet porn star will advertise the fact as much or more as an AVN Award winner. Many prominent porn stars will cite getting into one of these magazines as one of their main goals in entering pornography, Jenna Jameson and Brianna Banks are a couple. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not convincing. How much of that was true 45 years ago? To use my motivating example, it looks like Jan Roberts has not appeared anywhere since. Beyond the fact that we have so little information about her (and even less reliable and pertinent information... She likes chess and bridge! FFS...) it also argues against any sort of memorability, accomplishment, enduring importance, or any other sense of the word "notability". --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point for the case you mention. This, however, is the page for notability of pornographic actors, and for those, it is a notable distinction. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, you're quite right. She's not an actress of any sort. I hadn't even thought of that!

(Duh.)

I brought this up here because this page was cited to me as a defense of this article. Likely if I were to put the article up for deletion, it would continue to be cited as a defense. Do we agree it is inapplicable here? And is there anything else that is applicable? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:N is applicable. Doesn't appear this one passes at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)