Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)/Archive 3

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

Adhering to standards

After a detailed perusal, the overwhelming majority of pornographic actors with articles do not satisfy the criteria laid out by this policy. IMHO, most of these articles have no noteworthy content and tend towards gross self-promotion with few, if any, supporting citations. It is difficult to reconcile how loosely this policy is enforced compared with the stringency applied to non-notable people in other occupations. What extra notability does having sex publicly confer? 151.203.18.206 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite some specific examples? If so we can propose them for deletion. The system is not automatic and your feedback can help us to administer the rules. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 15:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already proposed many for deletion. Please see my list of edits. (Yes, I realize the system is not automatic, which made the proposal process rather tedious.) 151.203.18.206 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect, it took you one copy and paste of a PROD template per article, it's not possible to make it easier than that; compare that to the effort to create the articles in the first place. Many of the ones you so nominated will go, after those 5 days, but some won't, and thank goodness for that -- Tracey Adams, for example, is in the AVN Hall of Fame with hundreds of films to her credit, her article needs expansion, not deletion. By the way, the creator of this guideline User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. was also a noted user of both AFD and PROD for non-notable porn stars; that's one of the reasons he made it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't complaining per se about the cut&paste effort for deletion nomination, just commenting on it in response to Kevin's remark. As for the time spent creating the articles I've nominated for deletion, what can I say? An encyclopedia needs to have some notion of what's worth including and what isn't. If editors spend their time writing articles about unnoteworthy people, the inevitable consequence is some of those articles may be deleted. And for that matter, I certainly can't understand why people who have sex in public have their own notability criteria. It seems to me that WP:BIO is sufficient for evaluation. Either someone has made a notable difference to humanity or they have not. 151.203.18.206 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I just want to note that this user has went and nominated close to 50 porn actress biographies for speedy deletion. I, along with several other users, have gone and reverted out these speedy delete tags. The user was clearly blindly tagging articles, including quite a few about clearly notable porn actresses like Justine Joli and Carol Connors. I consider this action to be vandalism and suggest that editors keep an eye on this user's contribution page. Furthermore, I think if this user persists in this course of action, they should be blocked. I will point out to User:151.203.18.206 that if he or she has serious doubts about the notability of a given article, an WP:AfD nomination is almost always the proper course of action, NOT speedy deletion. Iamcuriousblue 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, User:Iamcuriousblue has seen fit to revert all my requests for deletion by incorrectly claiming they were improper requests for speedy deletes. However, my requests used the proposed deletion {subst:prod|reason} tag, rather than the speedy deletion family of {db} tags. He further refuses to acknowledge the distinction, so I will have to request administrative intervention. Whether I am right or wrong, his behavior is unacceptable.151.203.18.206 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll mention that I did read through the biographies, as you'll notice I went in alphabetical order and skipped those who seemed to qualify by current standards. Also, WP:AfD is not available to me, as I am and intend to remain an anonymous IP user. Finally, accusing me of vandalism without speaking to me about this first would seem to violate many policies, including WP:CIVILITY. Nonetheless, this is not the the right page for this discussion, so I suggest we limit our conversation to insuring the current articles satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:PORNBIO. 151.203.18.206 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This user has been nominating pages for automatic deletion after 5 days. That may not technically be a speedy deletion, but its an end-run around the WP:AfD process. That the simply does not wish to get a proper Wikipedia account (which speaks volumes about this user's motivations, IMO) is not a valid reason to be end-running around proper review of article deletion. The actions of 151.203.18.206 amount to vandalism, in my opinion and am now formally asking this user to stop. As far as administrative intervention goes, hell, I welcome it! I think this user has a few things to answer for. Iamcuriousblue 18:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoo. Deep waters. First, for what it's worth, I am an admin, but I would really like to avoid leaning on that fact if at all possible. I'd prefer to get out of this so everyone is, if not actually happy, at least reasonably content, and no one is blocked. Second, there is a difference between speedy deletion and WP:PROD ... but that difference includes things like any one objecting being able to remove the PROD tag. So I can't fault those removals. Similarly, there isn't anything wrong with a good faith PROD nomination of an article, so I can't fault that either. Third, however, let me make a general note about doing too much at once. Nominating so many articles for PROD at once does imply a certain amount of carelessness - the list seems to have included an AVN Hall of Famer, a Penthouse Pet, a performer in possibly the most famous porn film of all time with a highly notable daughter, etc. Similarly, removing so many PROD tags at once implies the same level of carelessness - at least a few of those articles I saw in the list really seem not to be notable under our standards. Can we take these again, more slowly this time? Don't panic. There is no deadline. Surely we can come to some agreement about some of the more obvious keeps and deletes? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough and calmly written. I'll address this at a higher level (e.g., this page) for now, rather that address articles individually. Notwithstanding, there seem to be some serious problems with the pornographic actor articles that employ entirely different standards than are used on the rest of wikipedia. For example, does that fact that Thora Birch's mother was a porn actress, even in a famous movie, make her mother notable? I don't see how or why. Look how strictly academics are weeded out of wikipedia. Why are the standards so lax here? 151.203.18.206 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Porn actors are public figures in a way that a lot of academics are not. I believe the Wikipedia notability guideline is often stated as "more notable than the average college professor". Well, somebody like Justine Joli clearly is far better known than that. And yes, I think that being Thora Birch's mother is one of the things that makes Carol Connors notable, along with appearing in Deep Throat and being hostess of The Gong Show. A minor '70s celebrity, but a celebrity nevertheless, and somebody who someone might very well come to Wikipedia looking for answers about. (I know I did when I first heard that Thora Birch's mom was a porn actress.)
I get the impression that you're what in Wikipedia terms is called a "deletionist". Personally, I'm a moderate inclusionist (I love the depth of Wikipedia), so we're probably not going to exactly see eye-to-eye on this. Just keep in mind that standards about notability are a highly contested issue throughout Wikipedia, and not just on this project. Keep that in mind before attacking WP:PORNBIO standards of notability. Iamcuriousblue 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll try not to panic about this. However, the suggested mass dump of articles was pretty upsetting for exactly the reasons you've stated above. As for "there is no deadline", the PROD template imposes a deadline of 5 days or the article is gone for good! Hardly enough time to properly evaluate 50 articles.
I'm not even suggesting that every article nominated by 151 is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. (However, I'll note that 151 has his own agenda about notability that is at odds with WP:PORNBIO. I'd suggest that if this user doesn't like those guidelines, he or she challenge the guidelines themselves, rather than delete articles based on his or her own personal criteria.) Its clear, though, that 151 was nominating a huge number of articles and not excercising any criteria at all beyond "have I heard of this person?". Given that this was largely a series of careless and unwarrented PROD nominations, I had no qualms about removing them all. Personally, if an article is going to be dumped, I really prefer the process be a bit more above-board than this, which is why I prefer the AfD process. And I'll note that 151 has admitted that the only reason they used PROD rather than AFD is that they are not willing to get a proper WP account and that as an anonymous user, they're not allowed to initiate AfDs. (Anonymous users are allowed to intiate PRODs and Speedy Deletes, but not AfDs – now that's a backward policy.) Iamcuriousblue 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Blue, you need to brush up on WP:CIVILITY and WP:Assume_good_faith. Your tone towards me has been consistently hostile and angry. I have explicitly acknowledged where I have mistakenly nominated things for deletion based on WP:PORNBIO and thanked those who have pointed out how notability was determined. (For example, it did not occur to me that being a "playmate" is considered an award.) Your continued nastiness, however, is simply unwarranted. As for my preferring to remain anonymous, now you're taking on the big philosophical guns here. I have absolutely every right to make edits from an IP address, without an "official" account. That is the whole point of wikipedia. I don't believe I've written anything offensive or even rude. My purposes here are constructive and while I think the notability exceptions for pornography actors are misguided, I accept them as is while they stand. And yes, I will work to overturn them. Not because I care one way or the other about pornography but because I see no reason to document any of these people in an encyclopedia. As far as I am aware, wikipedia is not a time capsule for ephemeral pop culture. 151.203.18.206 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
151, your prior actions were uncalled for and bordered on vandalism. You basically were in the process of dumping a great deal of other people's work based on no other standard but your own judgment. When I reverted the rather extreme changes you were making, you came at me in a manner I feel was very high-handed and arrogant. You were the one who first crossed the line into incivility and I won't be blamed if I responded in kind. If you'd like to discuss this civilly from this point forward, fine.
Yes, I'll admit, I do have something against anonymous editors, given that 90% of the anonymous users I encounter are either clear vandals or are trying to push an agenda that they know won't fly and hence don't bother to establish a clear Wikipedia identity. I'll really try and assume good faith about you, but, frankly, the initial edits I came across by you didn't give me reason to.
As for the rest of it, well, you're a deletionist and I'm an inclusionist, so obviously, we're not going to agree on ideas about notability. (Frankly, I'm not sure if I'd be very interested in Wikipedia if it was remade according to the guidelines you propose – I happen to like that fact that it has a great deal more depth than Encyclopedia Britannica.) But I have no problem with you pushing for the kind of guidelines you think are proper for Wikipedia, so long as you respect Wikipedia's processes for doing so. Iamcuriousblue 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you two need to calm down. As for the debate between you, I'll step in and support Blue on this one; 15 days isn't enough to evaluate the notability of that many articles. Also, it's considered respectful to use the AfD process instead of speedy deletion if you think that someone may contest the deletion. Someone has contested them, so take it to AfD and add each nomination to WP:P*/D. Also, note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, am calming down, since, for the time being at least, 151 is no longer actively trying to dump the articles in question. And technically there is a difference between speedy deletion and proposed deletion. However, the latter still only gives 5 days notice (not 15) before deletion, which I don't think is nearly enough time, especially since proposed deletions don't even have to be announced anywhere other than on the page itself. I'm not against getting rid of a bunch of the porn star biographies where notability is questionable. But by all means, this is somethng that needs to be discussed first. Starting out with "Here's 50 articles that are going to be gone in 5 days, but you can save some of them if you can give some damn good reasons why any of them can be kept" is not exactly the way to open up a civil, thoughtful discussion on the topic. Iamcuriousblue 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been calm and polite in my discussions. My tone has also been fairly subdued. At least give me credit for that much, as it is rare enough around here. There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the different avenues of deletion available on wikipedia. I used {subst:prod|reason} and I urge anyone reading this to examine the criteria listed on WP:Deletion policy. It does not give me the authority or ability to magically make articles disappear after 5 days and anyone is allowed to overturn it. Given that IP users have no recourse to WP:AFD, there are no other options for nominating articles for deletion, except for the {db} tags which I've used successfully for a few egregious (generally spam or nonsense) articles. All of this being said, I generally search through articles using the "random article" link, looking for things that don't look right. It sometimes happens that I hit upon articles that are vigilantly maintained by people fairly passionate about a cause, notwithstanding that the articles are quite lacking. For example, consider the fellow who was fighting with about this comment of mine: [Diff]. Obviously, this was a highly loaded subject for him and I was simply making a rather difficult to refute procedural point, namely, one can't cite accusatory, unsubstantiated rumors in an biographical article of a living person. That could be viewed as libel. I think he thought I was defending scientology, where I was doing nothing of the kind. Here too, I'm not attacking pornography, rather I'm nominating articles for deletion that appear to me to have no value according to my reading of WP:PORNBIO. Neither am I suggesting that this become Encyclopedia Britannica, as the world already has one of those. Nonetheless, there is a huge amount of information in wikipedia that appears to be of no use now nor is likely to be of use in the future. I am all in favor of removing such material: the total number of articles in wikipedia does not provide a measure of its success. 141.154.54.144 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this is still me, but my IP has changed. Such is the life of an IP-based Wikipedian. 141.154.54.144 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (The editor formerly known as User:151.203.18.206)
I'm getting rather tired of discussing who was uncivil to whom. Please take the following words as being civil, but at the same time firm and straightforward.
What I'm really having a hard time sympathizing with is the fact that you consider it such an imposition to simply create an account. An account doesn't have to give away any information about yourself and in fact gives away less information about you than does an IP address. The main reason it would be good for you to have one is that you could then initiate AfDs, which most of us would agree is simply the best way to deal with serious disputes over article subject notability. The fact that your self-imposed anonymity doesn't allow you to start an AfD is really not a valid reason for avoiding the AfD process when that process is clearly called for. Normal consensus building process should not be circumvented just to accomodate you. Iamcuriousblue 05:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not an imposition for me to create an account. I simply am editing Wikipedia according to its creators own vision. Anonymous editing is okay here, regardless of whether you approve of it or not. (If you object to this principle, this is certainly not the forum to debate it, and I highly doubt you'll change the most fundamental of Wikipedia philosophies.) You repeatedly accuse me of trying to circumvent normal procedures, as if I'm up to some nefarious purpose. I'll ask you once again to please refrain from this.141.154.54.144 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You're being a bit disingenuous when you say that proposed deletion "does not give me the authority or ability to magically make articles disappear after 5 days and anyone is allowed to overturn it." First, if I had left those tags up for a full five days, it would have been very likely that an administrator would have deleted the articles. Second, when I did overturn your rather hasty list of deletions and you complained mightily. I make no apologies for insisting on some discussion take place before such dramatic changes take place. Iamcuriousblue 05:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, discuss the content, not the contributor. Calling me "disingenuous" is not likely to foster productive communication. Deletion of the articles would have required explicit action on the part of an administrator. I have no idea whether that would have happened, and as WP:Deletion policy makes explicitly clear, anyone is able to remove the deletion proposal. 141.154.54.144 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to have a discussion of which articles should stay and which should go, I think that's reasonable and you'll find me open to such discussion. If you want to discuss policy changes, that's reasonable too. However, if you want to simply impose your will or absolutely insist on having your way 100%, I'm sorry, but I feel I have to stand up to you. Iamcuriousblue 05:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no way of "imposing my will" here. This kind of incendiary language is counter-productive. As I said on your talk page, I think this conversation has grown far too heated and we should postpone continuing it for a few days until things to cool off. At the very least, i would again request you stop talking about me or hypothesizing about my "hidden" agenda and restrict your comments to my edits, proposals, etc. 141.154.54.144 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting rather tired of your insistance that any criticism of your actions is uncivil and heated on my part. I'm trying to be civil here, but evidentally to you "civil" means having no opposition to your deleting whatever you please. Well, I guess I'm being completely uncivil then – tough, really.
When you're ready to drop your "put upon" act and actually engage in a discussion of what should be dropped and why, you'll find me amenable to that conversation. Iamcuriousblue 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Requirement for 100 films

I believe this requirement is too high. I wish I had more time to talk about it at the moment, but I've seen some very notable performers (i.e., ones who passed WP:NOTE by the multiple mentions) who don't fit in this genre. I've seen actors deleted with 70 films on imdb, because they didn't officially pass (incidentally, I've never come across an actor with 100 films, with the possibility of exceptions like Ron Jeremy). I propose lowering the threshold to 50. Thoughts? Part Deux 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone's just lowered it to 75. Epbr123 00:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
75 still seems too high for most actors, but I didn't want to make too big of a change at once. Do we have any suggestions as to an appropriate number? I also restored the Google Test to some form of legitimacy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Search engine tests hold no validity as notablility criteria at WP. The primary discussion is at Wikipedia:Search engine test, but hsi is an essay without the weight of a guideline or policy. There is no justifiacation for PORN to so radically depart from the consitency among other standards. --Kevin Murray 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Again agree with KM. The invalidity of the Google test was one of the reasons this guideline was created. A modern internet porn star can get thousands of Google hits one year, and be completely gone the next. On the other hand, I reverted KM's edit removing it from the page altogether; we really, really need to keep saying that, otherwise people will try to use it in AFDs. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point; however this sets a bad precedent for requiring an exhaustive list of invalid reasons to keep articles. If we were to attempt such a thing, it should be centralized and applicable to all subjects not just porn. I've not yet seen a successful opposition to an AfD based on G-hits etc. If so the admin needs to be admonished. More rules are not a fix for poor training. I removed the confusing lists again, but would support inclusion in a centralized essay or potentially a guideline. --Kevin Murray 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I hardly call what we have an exhaustive list, and it's damned useful to have "invalid" and "questionable" criteria, due in part to the aforementioned restrictions of the genre. Those rules have taken time to develop. For example, the list points out things like "imdb profile != notability," something that could be forgotten if it went missing. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to delete the list, delete it instead of reverting to a previous version before the consensus established below in #"do not on their own establish notability". —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested number

This is a semi-straw poll. Add your suggestion below.

  • 50 (Part Deux)
  • Oppose any number of films as proving notability, since porn films can be made in a motel room with a camcorder, and they are low budget-limited distribution products.If someone wanted a Wikipedia article to aid sales, it would be easy to put a performer in 100 films. That said, 100 is better than 75. Edison 13:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No numbers! Simply counting films doesn't establish notability, any more than counting photos taken would establish notability for a photographer, or lines written would establish notability for a writer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Quality is more important than quantity. Jenna Jameson isn't particularly prolific at the moment, but what films she does appear in usually become top sellers. Epbr123 14:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion is moot. The number criterion has never received significant support to establish it as other than a questionable threshold. There is no precedent in the other notability guidelines to publish "questionable" criteria, which only serve to confuse people at AfD. This whole guideline is a mess and should be brought into line with other standards at WP. --Kevin Murray 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Kevin Murray. That was always a contentious criterion, and we moved it to questionable as part of getting this accepted as a guideline, so it doesn't really matter very much. (That said, I reverted KMs recent edits removing them entirely, it is important they be there, because they are often referred to in AFDs, which is, after all, what this is for.) The problem is that it is very dependent on genre. Historically, 100 was quite a lot, but achievable, for a female standard straight porn actress active for five or ten years, which is why that was the standard - for what little it's worth, I support keeping it there for those historical reasons. However, almost no Japanese or gay performers achieve those numbers. On the other hand, a modern male straight porn actor can be in hundreds of films - see Tony Tedeschi for someone with over 1000, and there are others. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • 1000? Whoa... anyway, I agree with you that the number of films test is questionable for those reasons, but I'm having trouble encapsulating that into a few sentences that can't be interpreted as "If a performer hasn't performed 1000 films, then they're not notable." —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If we're going to pull the number of films out, then I think we should expand the language to make it clearer that the number of films that an actress will have to had appeared in to be considered "prolific" has risen over the years. A actress in the 70s might have appearances in only a dozen or two movies total and be considered "prolific", simply because there were so few films being made. But the sheer volume of films has grown over the years - a post here refers to a 1999 LA Times article that says the adult film industry was on track to releasing 10,000 films that year. That's about 200 films a week folks. Given that count, appearing in a dozen or two films can probably be done in the course of 2 energetic weeks by a given actress. And of course, the film counts for the straight guys will be far higher: Tony Tedeschi has over 1000 (per IAFD), Ron Jeremy 1900+, Peter North 1600+, Randy West 1200+, etc. Tabercil 22:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 50 I think 50 establishes notability. Corpx 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What about magazines?

The way the Valid Criteria is worded, it seems biased in favour of relevance in film over relevance in print. Is that really the intent? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I can't see any bias. The only criteria that omits magazine models is criteria 2, which is really just a subsection of criteria 3. Epbr123 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

serious contender

How about changing "serious contender" to "or have been nominated for"... , since there is a slight vagueness on what serious contender means? Corpx 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "serious contender" was used because awards such as FAME awards have two rounds of nominations before the final winner is chosen. There were so many stars nominated in the first round that it was agreed that only stars nominated in the second round would be classed as notable. "Serious contender" was used to differentiate second round nominees from first round nominees. Epbr123 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But not all award shows operate in that fashion. I believe the AVN only has one round? --wL<speak·check> 10:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if the wording was changed to "or have been nominated for" a lot more pornstars of lesser notability will be allowed articles. This is a list of this years' FAME award nominees; it has about 150 nominees. Epbr123 10:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have objections to "nominated for"... what about something along the lines of "multiple nominations"? Tabercil 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that that, but how much of an impact would that have on the current list of stars? Corpx 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't requiring multiple nominations reverting back to the old method of using numbers to judge notability? Epbr123 01:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:N technically requires "reliable sources", so there is a number thing there too. One nomination would be sufficient for me, but I'm willing to compromise Corpx 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe say "or have been the subject of nominations for..." ? Corpx 03:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hustler Honey should not be sufficient for notability

I just noticed in an AFD that being a Hustler Honey is listed in the WP:PORNBIO criteria as sufficient for notability, and I disagree. I don't think it should be an automatic qualifier for notability. Most pornographic magazines have some kind of centerfold pictorial, but they are not all created equal. Please compare (clicking the links helps):

  • Playboy Playmates are always listed with name, birthdate, and a real article about their real biography. Just the appearance gives most a tremendous kickstart to their modeling career, it's seen as the pinnacle of glamour modeling. We've got an article on every one of them, and though some are short, each has some text to put into it. It's an iconic award, walk down an American street and say to a random male "Have you seen Miss March?" and they will know you mean the one in Playboy, even if they haven't bought an issue in their lives. Most of Playmates don't go into hard core pornography, enough so that when any do it's a somewhat notable story in the industry press.
  • Penthouse Pets are at least always listed with a name, birthdate, and profile; it's not quite that iconic, but many on the harder core side of glamour modeling aspire to it; it was, for example, a major motivation for Jenna Jameson#Early career. A large number of Penthouse Pets became, or already were, relatively big name porn stars, and when they do, being a Penthouse Pet is widely advertised as a selling point on their videos.
  • Now click on List of Hustler Honeys. Half of them are only listed by first name -- clearly these people aren't getting any major boost to their modeling career, no agent is going to be looking for "Anne" or "Amanda". Note even a number of those who did become famous used a different name for their Hustler appearance; they clearly weren't planning to widely advertise it. Their profiles and names are often completely fictional, sometimes blatantly so, having no details, sometimes no resemblance to reality. If just being a Hustler Honey were a sufficient requirement for notability, we would have to keep dozens of articles about "Terri", "Mia", "Phoenix", and "Tally" with no information than "a pseudonym of a model who appeared in Hustler with a fictional back story."

I think being a Hustler Honey should basically count as an article and modeling appearance; in other words not nothing, but not much. It should not be sufficient in itself as if it were an award. I think the female should stop at Playboy and Penthouse; those are sought after as Awards, not just as modeling appearances. I don't know much about Playgirl; I do know that Richard Pacheco considered a big deal when he got it, more so than when he got a film award, so we should probably keep it until someone says something more definitive. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. Epbr123 14:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Tabercil 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the support, and no objections for several days, removed from guideline. If objections show up, we can talk about it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 11:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Independant sources

Nowhere does in WP:PORNBIO does it say performers need to be covered by independant reliable sources. Does this need to be added to bring it inline with WP:N? Epbr123 16:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I say no. We wouldnt need WP:PORNBIO if WP:N's "significant coverage from independent sources" is met. Corpx 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought the point of WP:PORNBIO was to establish what "significant coverage from independent sources" means in relation to porn. Epbr123 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm, I thought it was to give notability to subjects in areas where significant coverage may not be present, like WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC, where other criteria confers notability Corpx 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:PROF requires independent sources, and I'm not sure how music is an area where significant coverage may not be present. Epbr123 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
They all have caveats which allow for notability if lacking "significant coverage" Corpx 19:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
But those caveats are only used in exceptional circumstances, and they require their work to have received significant coverage. I don't think requiring independent sources would have much of an impact on the current criteria. Anyone satisfying the current criteria is likely to have independent coverage, eg. AVN winners will get coverage on the AVN website, prolific performers will get coverage at IMDB. Epbr123 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

A discussion about deletion sorting of PORNBIO's has been started at WT:DS#Pornography_list. John Vandenberg 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Absurd addition to Valid Criteria

I removed a recent addition to Valid Criteria because it is absurd. It said, in effect, that an otherwise non-notable porn actor meets the specified condition for a porn article if s/he has done something notable outside of the porn industry -- that is absurd, plain and simple. Why should notability outside of the porn industry confer notability on a porn actor, such that s/he warrants an article as a porn actor? 72.76.90.32 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The guideline doesn't say they would warrant an article as a porn actor; it just says they would warrant an article. Although, it does seem a superfluous criteria as they'll need to have already satisfied one of the other notability guidelines. Epbr123 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I replaced it. I think there should be discussion before this is removed, rather than having a single anonymous user decide what is and isn't valid. Iamcuriousblue 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed it. There was no discussion when it was added. Let there be a discussion to add it. --72.76.90.32 00:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(pornographic_actors)/Archive_3&oldid=580152048"