Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skrshawk (talk | contribs) at 04:40, 9 January 2007 (→‎disputed: Response to W.marsh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  • Archive 1: Apr–Aug 2006
    • Gay stars & 100, notable essay, mainstream appearances, ready?, porn verifiability, magazine covers, internet models
    • Number of criteria, 100 films, niche genre, rename to "erotic", test of time
    • Japanese stars, not for relationships, 100+ films, & gay stars, criteria, magazine appearances, language
    • Gay stats, crossing over, names in titles, Playmates

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • No it's not good for those films either. —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General principles

Why is this listed in notability.. this topic isn't notable! --frothT C 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)

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:

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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support as per Nuclear's comments. Tabercil 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support and mirror Nuclear's thoughts. Olessi 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, no euphemisms, but watch your assertions, please. They're outright wrong. Let me address them in order.
  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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Vatsaas
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very good idea. Should be added. --Haham hanuka 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Haham hanuka 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Biased

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)[reply]

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.)[reply]
– 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose. per above. --Haham hanuka 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, are there specific articles where you feel criterion #7 is being "exploited"?—Chidom talk  03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support

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)[reply]
  • Oppose per AnonEMouse. Dekkappai 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(pornographic_actors)&oldid=99493111"