Jump to content

Talk:Brandi Love/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Content issues

This page *seriously* requires some cleanup, removal of NPOV, non-encyclopedic text, potential advertising, etc., if not a notability check to begin with. 91.33.195.121 (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is very confusing. Is it talking about one person or two persons? It sounds like two separate people, in which case it should be split into two articles (or none, as the notability of either seems questionable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.70.238 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've quickly looked over the sources, and a bit of the article history. The sourcing is poor, the problems from the coi editing are still evident, and the redundancy in the article gives the appearance that no one is maintaining the article as a whole.

Granted, some of the primary sources may be fine as used. I wasn't expecting to find so very many problems with the sources so haven't yet taken the time to look how each is used. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

AVN has a conflict of interest

http://business.avn.com/articles/23029.html shows that AVN has a conflict of interest in their reporting on her. As such, it should not be used to determine weight. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Its a non-profit trying to help out performers who are also parents. This so called judgement you've made is laughable. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"Its a non-profit trying to help out performers". So we agree that they have a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I find your analysis of the source and its contents sorely out-of-whack... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. I say it has a conflict of interest. You say it is helping performers. In the context of the source, those are the same thing. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's helping, first and foremost, parents who happen to be part of the industry. Wow, seriously? You don't get that? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Do WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
One person doth not a consensus make. No consensus has been established in support of the opinion that AVN, a widely cited publication providing news about the adult industry, is a primary source. At most, it might be argued that they have a COI, or may be primary, with regard to the rather narrow topic of Parents in Adult, most of the content concerning which is cited to an independent, secondary mainstream source. Other AVN-sourced content in this article has no policy-based reason to be questioned. So the question would seem to be, "Do we want to open a discussion at RSN to decide whether the comment about the discussion of Parents in Adult on The Howard Stern Show is adequately sourced?" 70.209.48.119 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. It doesn't appear to be based upon any application of policy or understanding of the source that I can see, which is what we want to base consensus upon. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Awards

The section should only include notable awards, and only awards that were actually won. The RISE award was being discussed recently here. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your opinions don't equate to policy. One award was won and there were several nominations, again sourced. If you don't like it, fine, but please stop trying to make up justifications for content that has been extensively discussed by Porn Project members over the last several months and years. If the award become notable for its own article, fine, until then a win or a nomination is just a statistic citable like any other. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please try to WP:FOC.
This is a BLP. Anyone want to discuss policy and making this article encyclopedic? --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, using these awards and nominations as sources for statements in the article is a WP:SYN violation. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I see Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did a purge on the article and cleared out a lot of stuff but here's my $0.02. The RISE win, I'm inclided to say it should be in - especially since we can point to AVN as a source for it. As for the lack of an article for the RISE Awards, that's no more an issue than the lack of an article is for the NightMoves awards. Tabercil (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.
"that's no more.." Correct, which is why I started this discussion to address the awards in general. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, but here we cover details where we have no sources indicating that the material is anything beyond promotion and puffery. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to see your evidence that the awards that do not have a separate article are "anything beyond promotion and puffery" simply because they exist and someone won them. Being an experienced editor, you should understand that the existence of a WP article doesn't mean a subject is not notable in the real world. There are plenty of awards in the arts, science, and mathematics that barely get a mention in the press, but they exist and when they are won or achieved, inclusion in an article for a WP Notable subject isn't a problem. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:Notable isn't at issue. It does have criteria high enough that meets inclusion criteria for related articles.
"I'd like to see your evidence" Sorry, but you don't appear to understand. I'm saying we need sources to demonstrate that awards are worth mention, rather than being simply promotion and puffery. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Lots of folks seem to think that awards matter. Look at how often a musician bio gets altered to say something like "is a Grammy-award winning musician" or an acting bio gets changed to say "is an Oscar-winning actor". That to me is indicative of how much weight we put on things like awards. Tabercil (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Grammy, Oscars --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The same could be said of artists and scientists as well who receive awards that are completely unknown outside of their respective fields. The List of prizes, medals and awards is full of awards I have never heard of, but I don't remove a mention of someone winning them because of that nor do I declare them "promotion and puffery" because of my own ignorance. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
"because of my own ignorance" You want to discuss ignorance? --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Heh, a statement like that reminds me of one of the quotes on my Talk page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So, no sources that demonstrate that these specific awards deserve mention, much less the nominations. RfC time? --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So to prep for an RfC: Using only primary sources for non-notable awards and award nominations violates WP:SOAP and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Given that these problems have been discussed many times with Hanswar32 (and Scalhotrod has taken part, even started some of the discussions), they look like WP:REFSPAM: User_talk:Hanswar32#Disputed_notability_of_awards, User_talk:Hanswar32#Hello, User_talk:Hanswar32#CAVR, User_talk:Hanswar32#Rise_Awards. --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I started similar discussions at Talk:Alexis_Texas#Non-notable_awards and Talk:Bobbi_Starr#Non-notable_awards - articles that appear to get more attention from different editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." The concerns here are not WP:OR problems, but rather NPOV and SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As we've no secondary sources, the material should be removed. Given this is a BLP, it should remain out until there is policy-based consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY has more detail, but is focused on WP:OR problems. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ronz, just a quick reality check... You do realize that for the last week or so you've been having a conversation with yourself and making it look like a threaded conversation that others are involved in, right? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ronz, that's all well and good, but when no one else seems to agree with your interpretation of policy, it becomes disruptive. Using a Primary source to simply state that someone has won an award, a simple binary statistic (yes/no, won/lost or won/nominated), is not against Policy. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreement isn't the issue. Policy-based consensus is. There are absolutely no policy-based arguments against, so the policy-based consensus as it stands is for removal. Of course, I'm taking this slowly since there is disagreement. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Scals for giving Ronz that much needed reality check. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. " --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to track down all the related discussions on the matter. It's a mess, and there is clearly no consensus (which then favors removal at least from BLPs until there is consensus to include). Currently, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#The_removal_of_non_notable_awards_on_film_articles is ongoing, though may be reaching an end. I'm getting the impression that editors are waiting for this to close before continuing the other discussions. Maybe we should do the same. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mention of non-notable awards in pornography articles

There is a discussion on how to address non-notable awards in pornography articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Mention_of_non-notable_awards_in_articles. We'd appreciate help creating consensus on when and how such awards are mentioned in pornography biographies and related articles. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Brandi Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brandi Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Real name in lead?

Hello. My recent edits to the first paragraph of the article to include her real name were reverted, so I am opening up a discussion here per WP:BRD. Per WP:BLP, we should use reliable sources. Would this link count as a reliable source for her full name since books can be used as reliable sources? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

That looks offhand like it'd work. Tabercil (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brandi Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello

How are you Ajay kachhawa (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry?

Does Brandi Love have any Jewish ancestry? 2601:8C:4501:2310:3D0E:7E71:F0FC:1766 (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brandi_Love/Archive_1&oldid=1053646352"