Talk:List of actors in gay pornographic films/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

meanwhile... zh:wp

{{刪除}}理據：粗劣翻译
　提交的維基人及時間：Leon3289 (留言) 2010年2月4日 (四) 06:21 (UTC)

{{刪除}}理據:讓我很無言，首先，這個條目是你自己要創立的，不要在一開頭就那邊哀哀叫，第二，翻譯也要翻好一點，第三，請你不要中英不分好嗎!第四，希望有人能把這篇條目做更好的處理。--愛德華-庫倫 (留言) 2010年2月4日 (四) 07:16 (UTC) 我已經改善了翻譯了,請求你不要再刪除它,如翻譯再有問題,請告訴我,我會立即改善的!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungs3309d (talk • contribs)

  • {{意见}}：这个明显是一个新手，是不是可以想办法帮忙一下……不过我真的很难相信这个是花4个小时翻译出来的 Orz...。 ——快龙☀人过留名 2010年2月4日 (四) 12:04 (UTC)

我个汗...4小时...———Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbrellaben (talk • contribs)

It looks to be going down ;) Jack Merridew 08:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to translate? Ash (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I took it to be a zh:AfD; the templates are red and orange icons (none green;) that seem to be delete and comment indicators. The parent-page: zh:维基百科:頁面存廢討論 iwlinks back to en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I've notified them of this discussion. The zh:article:
sports a bunch of dire-looking tags. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The main issue at that debate is that it is a very poor translation from the english, not any BLP concerns. I also note that the French incarnation of this article is blue-link only. Not that these matter too much because different Wikipedias operate differently, but it is interesting to note. ThemFromSpace 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision with red links removed

Here is a revision of the article with the red links removed. It would nice if everyone could leave it alone for long enough for the bot to repair the broken references. That will give us a point to work from should anyone ever choose to look at cleaning up the sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To all of the parties here, please don't edit war over this material. Currently I don't see much of a consensus for any large scale editing with regards to this article, which is why I threw up an RfC. Them From Space 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The bot has done its thing - this is now the version that should be used as a baseline. Now that that is done, if anyone wants to revert my changes, I won't agree with your actions, but neither will I revert you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
As I just commented in the above section, this is looking up. The bot left some broken cites, no? Off to look. Good job, Jack Merridew 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Delicious carbuncle, shouldn't you wait for the results of the RFC first? Especially since you have absolutely no policy to back up your opinion. Ikip 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP, Ikip. Most of those redlinks would be living people. Jack Merridew 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Lol. No Jack Merridew, BLP would apply if these people were not readily identifiable with reliable sources that they are indeed male actors in gay pornographic films. Guess what? They all are. -- Banjeboi 11:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, we don't remove redlinks if there is a chance that there will be articles about the link target. I was just talking with someone about this on my talk page. (see User:Lar#WP:REDLINK & the bounds of a BLP article ). However in this case, as with other lists where inclusion might be considered derogatory to the subject, if there is no source for the information, removal is warranted. This is a huge list, to be sure, but that's not a waiver. Each and every name on the list needs to be sourced, or it is subject to removal under WP:BLP policy. Edit warring to preserve BLP violating material is not allowed, and this is not a matter for local consensus to decide. If that's not sufficient, this matter needs to be referred to the BLP noticeboard. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've requested that this page be protected due to the edit warring. I'll let the protecting admin decide for himself which "wrong version" to protect. Them From Space 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Derogatory? Confusing someone with a homosexual might be derogatory, or with someone who does pornography for a living? How about we just change the links so that (pornographic actor) is added to it? Would that solve this problem? And why not just remove the links, instead of mass deleting a large chunk of information, about people who are sourced as having won a notable award, such as the GayVN Awards? Dream Focus 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It might be useful to look at List of pornographic actresses by decade which is the closest equivalent article for female performers. There are no red links and any attempts to add a red link to that list will be quickly rebuffed. All sourcing is in the articles themselves, not in the list, which seems entirely more appropriate and is much easier to maintain. I have suggested that stubs be created for any notable male performers rather than continuing this debate over red links, but no one seems to be interested in doing that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
"There are no red links and any attempts to add a red link to that list will be quickly rebuffed"
No discussion on the talk page about red links.
As far as I can see, all red links removed on that page have no sources,[1][2] which is the difference here.
I see a lot of red links are deleted after they fail AFDs are deleted for other reasons...which I would support here too.
Bottom line is that there is no guideline or policy which states sourced red links should be deleted. Ikip 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe WP:LIST and WP:SAL support the inclusion of red links only if there is a reasonable expectation that articles will be forthcoming. Both guidelines mention that lists should not be used primarily for development or maintenance purposes. Having just gone through a fairly time-consuming exercise of removing the red links, I can affirm that I removed at least half of the entries. You may be surprised to learn that some of the red links (or unlinked entries) here were from articles which had been deleted at AfD. Previous removals of these entries were reverted, so apparently your commonsense view is not shared by all, which is one of the issues here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually this is the only list on male actors in gay pornographic films - there isn't a great equivalent but as long as you bring it up ... This list has been improving to note when each actor was/is active and the vast majority of notable early performers are not represented as the awards didn't exist yet, and when porn awards started there were very few that even addressed gay content. The vast majority of redlinks are for actors that won major porn awards in the last fifteen years, and only in the US. Those eager to delete content here are woefully misinformed and are pushing for an extreme inclusion guideline that isn't supported in policy or practice. -- Banjeboi 12:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's deal with the fiction that this is the "only" list of gay porn performers. Looking at Category:Gay male pornography, we have the lists List of Grabby recipients, List of gay pornography awards, GayVN Awards, and Gay Erotic Video Awards. Additionally, there are gay male performers such as Wolf Hudson already included in List of African-American pornographic actors (which may not be appropriate if Hudson does not self-identify as African-American). I'm not sure how many lists of straight porn performers there are, but looking at Category:Lists of pornographic film actors, there don't seem to be any more than for gay porn performers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
DC, expressing your annoyance in edit comments (diff for the above) is not appropriate, particularly as they cannot be struck out later. This could be read as an attempt to bait other editors, please stop. You may find the advice of TEA helpful. Ash (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not annoyed at all. In fact, I'm laughing as I write this. Calling something "bullshit" isn't a sign of annoyance nor is it offensive where I reside. If addressing the misinformation being spread here seems like "baiting" to other editors, perhaps they are the ones who should walk away from the issue. By the way, edit summaries can be redacted, but I would be very surprised if anyone felt it necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
We write for an international layman readership. I am writing in London, the majority of people in England would be offended if you told them they were talking bullshit, particularly in front of other people. Laughing it off as trivial does not stop it being offensive to me and others. Please do not side-track or mis-represent my statement, the context was obviously about you appearing to deliberately bait other editors. Ash (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think people in London and many other places might be offended simply by being told that they were wrong, but my point was that the word itself is not offensive. Your assumption that I was intending to bait anyone is simply wrong - I was not. It's probably best if you stop making assumptions about my moods, intentions, and motivations. Let's clear up one point - Benjiboi is likely to accuse me of harassment, link me to sites critical of Wikipedia, minimize any past discussions which reveal his actions, and generally attempt to divert the conversation rather than deal with the specific issues. It generally has like relevance to what I've actually written. It makes it unpleasant, but I am used to it, and I am not deterred by it. If we could all try to focus on the article, it would be better for everyone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to your behaviour, not inviting you to speculate about Benjiboi. If you want discussions to stay on track I suggest you avoid describing other editors contributions as "bullshit" or any other uncivil or disparaging term. I accept your usage may have been out of ignorance of how other people may find it offensive when you obviously do not. Ash (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
While remaining civil and remembering we write for an international audience are both good pieces of advice in general I think this subthread is a red herring, a digression at best. Comment on content, not the contributor, which goes both ways. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
That's really good advice that seems to be lost on the one who hath brought us yet another round of drama. Despite the deflection this remains the only list for male performers in gay porn, List of Grabby recipients is not solely male actors and the rest are not lists or aren't solely for these folks either. Experienced editors should be aware the difference of categories and lists - just a hint here, since we're referring to people who don't have articles written about them presently they certainly wouldn't be in any categories. -- Banjeboi 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There are “sources” on a lot of that redink, but they're terrible sources. Further, absent any actual article that firmly nails down just who is being labeled as a performer in these porn vids, inclusion in this list can be seen as casting an aspersion on anyone sharing the name. There are many names that are quite common and even some that are just single names; 'Roger' comes to mind from a few months ago. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we talk about the "terrible sources" I will support the deletion of names which have terrible sources. Ikip 05:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned one example in my comment (in addition to the IMDB examples), as well as another example without any sources at all. Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that no one has picked up on DC's comment above that a lot of the redlinks are of people who have been deleted. I noticed two examples of this in the tiny number I looked at. Is there actually anyone who disagrees if the article on the subject has been deleted (particularly AFD) then it should be removed until recreated? Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but consider this discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan‎ - the conclusion has been to delete the article of the second most credited actor in the history of gay pornography (as evidenced by any film database you care to check that includes porn films) who has been the lead actor of several award-winning films. If a consequence of that dubious decision is to purge his name even from this general list of porn stars, then I'm not sure what use to anyone the list really is, as any layman reader would be better off not using Wikipedia to find out about the adult entertainment industry. Letting literal interpretation win over common sense has made a nonsense of this article. I guess editors such as DC will be glad to hear that I'm tired of having the debate, let's hope that the long-term outcome is rather more positive than the rubbish decisions I'm seeing on article deletions at the moment. Ash (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ash, any layman reader would be better off not using Wikipedia for any special interest subject. The Wikipedia definition of notability is often at odds with what a particular community would view as obvious. It is a mistake to view it as unique to gay porn performers or in any way targeted at this group. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is unique to pornographic actors, that's the whole point of PORNBIO, it does target porn actors. In this field I consider myself a layman who would refer to Wikipedia as I have no expertise in the adult entertainment industry. It is my layman viewpoint that finds it odd that someone who I would call notable for being the second most credited in gay porn history is deleted by (somewhat marginal) consensus based on a lack of film awards in their name rather than for the films they had lead roles in and in the process ignoring their erotic wrestling film directing career. Ash (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm opening myself up to another round of accusations for pointing this out, but Benjiboi has actively reinserted or relinked entries removed or unlinked following deletion. A recent example - the Christy Twins are unlinked following deletion at AfD (I would have preferred to see them removed), Benjiboi relinks them with the edit summary "rvt, WP:Redlinks show an article does not exist, and after looking for more I think an article on either the twins or twins in gay porn would certainly be acceptable". There are several more instances that same day. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately many articles are deleted based only on the surface appearance regardless of if the subject is actually notable so each case should be based on if they actually are notable not if someone made, yet another, knee-jerk reaction to delete. This is common in these porn articles unfortunately. -- Banjeboi 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed re-wording of PORNBIO

I thought some of the contributors here may be interested in the proposed rewording under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors. Your views either way would be welcome. Ash (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation of new articles for gay porn performers

Ash is hard at work creating new articles for what were previously red links. I had hoped that whoever undertook this would start by creating stubs for only the clearly notable performers (for example, each GayVN Awards winner) rather than attempting to make each former red link into a full article. I have noted some problems with this approach, so I'm going to propose some guidelines here to get the discussion started.

  • Sourcing - awards should be sourced to the official sites (use archive.org if required) or industry sites such as AVN. Links to commercial porn sites should be avoided. IMDB may be included as an external link but should not be used as a reference.
  • Red links - avoid creating red links, or ensure that links are properly disambiguated for all the reasons discussed here already.
  • Awards - awards meeting WP:PORNBIO criterion of "Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards". Clearly AVN or GayVN awards. Grabby Awards? Which others?
  • Videographies - I did a quick survey of female porn performers and they do not seem to contain videographies, so I don't think gay porn performer bios should contain videographies either. Clearly something like the videography at Chris Stone which is currently a list of about 45 external links is unacceptable.
  • Recreations of previously deleted articles - create in userspace, if there is any doubt about meeting WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO, ask for comment from deleting admin?

Comments? Suggestions? I'll post a link to this discussion at WP:PORN. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your first point; the awards need to be verified by a reliable source, preferably the official awards site, and not the unreliable IMDB. I agree with your second point. Awards meeting WP:PORNBIO are generally thought to be those that are notable and have a Wikipedia article, ie. the ones at Category:Pornographic film awards. Awards at List of gay pornography awards don't count unless they have their own article. WP:PORN discourages videographies in performer articles due to their length, although this is at odds with the guidelines for actors in general. Long lists of external links are indeed unacceptable. Previously deleted articles should only be recreated if there is no doubt they pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm adding a couple of points that missed earlier:
  • Links - As in any other article, direct links in articles should be avoided. Direct links to porn sites are unacceptable.
  • Studios - The article should be about the performer, not about the studios with which they are involved. Unless the performer is directly involved in the ownership or management of the studio, there is no need to include the studio or production company. Avoid formations like Performer appeared in "Name of film" (Name of studio, 2010).
I think following these guidelines would go a long way toward defusing a lot of the debates that have sprung up around the issues of BLP, COI, and promotional editing in the area of male performers in gay porn films. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"Direct links to porn sites are unacceptable" - Exactly who defines which sites are porn sites? I know of no examples where shock sites have been used as sources, please point out an example. Attempting to ban links to pornography sites, particularly for articles on pornography, is a direct contravention of NOTCENSORED. At this point you appear to be promoting argumentative special "guidelines" for the sake of disrupting improvement of this article. Stop. Ash (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to ban links to pornography links. I'm suggesting that direct links to porn sites are unacceptable in the body of articles on porn performers. WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant to this discussion, and, so far as I know, no one is suggesting that biographies of gay porn performers are not welcome on Wikipedia. I've put forward some guidelines which I think are fairly straightforward and common-sense for discussion here with the aim of reducing the needless debates that occur here and at individual articles. I'm hopeful that we will hear from a wider variety of editors and can reach some agreement about this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If you expect other editors to make informed comments, please explain what a "porn site" is and why banning such links would not be a contravention of NOTCENSORED. You have failed to identify an article where such links were considered "unacceptable", it seems pointless to create new rules for non-existent problems.
As for your belief that biographies of gay porn actors are welcome, you have already stated you consider them a "special" case (requiring more control than BLPs for murderers) and we have seen a recent spate of pre-1990s porn star BLPs where awards in their names could not be identified being deleted purely on this basis, regardless of other sources being produced. The fact that very few documented awards existed in the 1980s has not been accepted by persistent deletionists as a rationale to take a less hard-line approach with interpreting PORNBIO. Ash (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to wait for comments from other editors rather than respond to you directly since you seem to be taking this as some sort of attack. Inflammatory rhetoric and distortions of my words aren't going to help us reach agreement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) That looks like a lot of "special" requirements you are making up. I am increasingly uncomfortable with the "special" interpretation of BLP, V, N... that some editors have created to set a special high quality bar for gay porn actors compared to any other kind of biographical article. Such literal interpretations and "special" treatment seems to be purging this topic off Wikipedia and neatly pandering to prejudice making an effective censorship. The speedy deletion of Paul Carrigan (the second most credited actor in the history of gay pornography) is my best example to date of the tendency to let Wiki-lawyering over-rule common-sense for this topic.

Taking your points separately:

  • Videographies No. There is no justification for treating a Videography for a porn star differently to any other genre apart from prejudice, particularly if selected for their most notable films. If you take a look at someone like, Russell Tovey, all of his appearances on TV, radio and stage productions have been included. Any argument to not list films for an actor is as ridiculous as refusing to list books for an author.
  • Sourcing No, WP:RS applies across Wikipedia, there is no need for "special" requirements here. Note that "official" site is not that meaningful, if a source does not appear to meet WP:RS then that needs to be judged on a case by case basis.
  • Awards Refer to List of gay pornography awards, by definition inclusion on this list means they are notable. I suggest that is our guide for awards with the caveat that it is not currently exhaustive and there are some existing award article pages that need to be linked in, including pornography awards that are not specifically gay but may be awarded to actors who appear in gay pornography. There may be a need to use a category rather than a fixed list. There is no need to create a different list on this talk page.
  • Recreations Only if the sourcing is weak, otherwise the issue is moot. Again, there is absolutely no need for "special" requirements, the guidelines as for any article being re-created apply. If the article is about the same person as that previously deleted then the guidelines suggest that the creator contact the deleting admin, this is good practice, no need for new rules here.
  • Redlinks No. WP:REDLINKS and WP:BLP applies as with the rest of Wikipedia. "Special" rules are not needed and censorship by the backdoor is not welcome. Ash (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
These are actually pretty common-sense suggestions which are based on policy and what appears to be the norm for articles about female porn performers. I'm surprised by some of the reactions here. Biographies of porn performers, whether gay, straight, male, or female, are special and should be handled with extra care. Using words like "censorship" and "prejudice" is unhelpful and inflammatory. I had hoped that we could have a reasonable discussion here and avoid future arguments about articles, but that seems unlikely to happen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
When I was collaborating on and improving controversial articles on topics such as recently arrested murderers, mass cult suicides or graphic S&M practices, no "special" rules were needed, everyone seemed to think that standard guidance such as BLP or RS were enough to control any abuse or potential risk of defamation. I am unclear why labelling an actor as having appeared in pornography would need special rules when labelling someone a murderer is adequately covered by the standard guidance.
Please note my phrasing, I have not accused any editor of censorship or prejudice, my statement was "neatly pandering to prejudice making an effective censorship" this is not the same thing. I have no intent of making unfounded allegations. Ash (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You also said "censorship by the backdoor is not welcome", which could easily be read as an accusation, but my point was that using words like "censorship" and "prejudice" is unhelpful in any case, accusations notwithstanding.
I think it should be fairly obvious to most people that mistakenly labelling someone as a murderer is not a good thing and can have negative real-life consequences when done on one of the most widely viewed web sites on the internet. The same goes for labelling someone a porn performer, although I am in no way equating the two. You have the added risk in this case of mistakenly labelling that person's sexuality, which -- like it or not -- is an issue for many people. Add to that the privacy issues for porn performers - real names, birth dates, medical conditions, etc. Add to that the tendency of over-zealous fans and paid editors to inflate/promote the work or accomplishments of their favourite performers/clients.
I'm hoping to avoid all of these issues by agreeing on a set of guidelines here which will prevent edit wars, arguments, and accusations as Wikipedia's coverage of gay porn performers increases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You may be surprised to hear that most people would think that being mistakenly accused of murder is probably even worse than being incorrectly accused of being an award-winning successful porn star. Current Wikipedia guidance is sufficient for murderers, nobody invented special rules. Have you thought that your suggestions may have more weight if you worked on improving or creating some articles and could point to example good articles as a result of your contributions rather than campaigning for new reasons to delete articles? Alternatively you could create a list of notable gay porn stars which you think would be suitable for articles, say those who have won awards and where reliable sources are available to back that up. Such a list would avoid the arguments you say you are concerned about. It could be called something like "List of male performers in gay porn films". Ash (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is not helpful. Please try to focus on the proposed gidelines and moving this forward. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) There seems to be a long-standing misinterpretation of WP:BIO and that is in order for an actor to be considered as notable in the eyes of WP:PORN they MUST pass WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. This simply isn't the case. WP:BIO states that the must pass the Basic Criteria and at least one additional criteria including WP:ARTIST among many, however "failure to meet these (additional) criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Many porn performers also have other areas of interest including erotic dancing, film production, and directing.

WP:BIO is a special form of WP:GNG and its guidelines may be substituted for WP:GNG. Passing WP:GNG is never mentioned in WP:BIO as a requirement, and like the name states, the General Notability Guidelines is a generic guideline, while Notability (people) is topic specific. Making a notability determination often involves a good deal of common sense and not necessarily "strict adherence to the rules." - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle first you ignore suggestions to talk first and shoot later, and proceed to delete dozens of sourced entries that clearly demonstrate notability based solely on the premise that they simply couldn't be notable because ... the article isn't written yet. Meanwhile your track record at attempting to delete content and articles in the area shows you have little to no interest in finding sourcing at all but instead are intent on simply deleting whatever you can despite easily found sourcing. Then instead of maturely discussing issues you again personalize the issue and now complain that they very articles you insisted had to be written are now being written. After three months of this "help" which amounts to a lot of complaining, disruption and drama you are now proposing extra hoops just for this subject area, No, no and no. Wikipedia is not censored, the same rules apply for all content and IMBD is especially useful for our readers who want to see a fuller videography which we would not have as part of this list. In short, you have shown poor judgment in how to conduct yourself in a collegial manner and arguably the same poor judgment in what content in this area should be preserved or not. Ash should be commended for their diligence and willingness to create articles to appease this latest attempt to marginalize and diminish this area of content. It's a shame all the drama ensued but clearly those with less emotional investments in this content area are better suited to judge what content is encyclopedic and how to present it. A thoughtful discussion in how to note which actors pre-gay awards should be included was my hoped for discussion on this page but clearly your agenda will have to ride over all other concerns as one thread after the next is all about new ways to delete content you apparently don't approve. I'm afraid this just seems like more of the same and that's unfortunate and unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out BIO Stillwaterising. Unfortunately well established admins such as Epbr123 (talk · contribs) seem inflexible and unable to accept your argument as shown in a number of recent AfDs where this has been the core debate. Even when PORNBIO is discounted (such as with the deletion of Paul Carrigan), the same old zealous deletionists make sure that a hardline interpretation is followed, which in practice would lead to the deletion of half the biography articles on Wikipedia if applied to other genres. My concern is a lack of even-handedness. In a topic with a natural bias toward American porn stars (notice that most of the awards mentioned are USA based) and actors in roles after 1995 (as anything before that has a lack of on-line sources) means that genres with high cultural and historic impact such as British gay porn of the 1980s has only a tiny number of biographic articles. Wikipedia continues to be an unwelcoming place for adult gay topics and while deletionists have the upper-hand, article contributors will have to spend half their time arguing the toss again and again rather than working on improvement. Ash (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Stillwaterising, you are misreading WP:BIO. The section entitled "Basic criteria" is a summary of the general notability guideline. The section entitled "Additional criteria" refers to criteria that must be met in addition to the basic criteria. This is clarified in the section entitled "Special cases". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That was my understanding as well. There are important differences between WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, GNG says "received significant coverage in reliable sources" and the Basic Criteria says "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". There's a huge difference between "been the subject of" and "significant coverage". The guideline for subject specific notability guidelines (like BIO) and GNG is that a subject passes notabilty if it passes either guideline, but not required to pass both. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong. In the "In a nutshell" section at the top of the page, it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I think you will recognize that wording as a summary of WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Since when does This page in a nutshell override what BIO actually says? Clearly the sentence is not in accordance with the rest of the guideline. In a nutshell, if an article passes GNG it doesn't matter if it passes BIO (or PORNBIO). But specifically, if it doesn't pass GNG then it should pass the Basic Criteria and at least one additional criteria. Notice that nowhere in BIO is GNG even mentioned. The second paragraph of GNG states "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines (including WP:BIO) listed on the right." - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive ANI complaint

Those who have followed the above discussion may wish to note that rather than waiting for a consensus on his/her ideas for "special" rules to be reached on this talk page, Delicious carbuncle has raised this ANI complaint about my creation of articles about actors in gay pornography. This appears to be forum shopping as the same issues were raised. As it is unclear what administrator action is being requested, I assume this is intended to either block me from editing or put me on a topic ban (which should need a RfC).

It should be noted that I have created articles about actors in gay pornography where there were well-known awards to support their notability under PORNBIO. At the time of this ANI being raised, DC has not raised any specific problem with regards to BLP guidance on any article I have created. Ash (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I followed the AN/I complaint over here - does that mean I've been canvassed? Anyway, I find Ash's comments here[3] to be persuasive. Censorship is a harsh charge and I don't see any reason to suspect it's done intentionally. However, censorious results sometimes arise from the best of intentions, when people hold a controversial subject up to a higher standard than other subjects. Regarding sourcing, most filmographies and simple biographical details are not sourced in most articles across the encyclopedia. That is not the ideal, and as a general matter every single statement of any sort ought to have a citation. If you see a statement that is unsourced, feel free to source it, but the guidelines urge you to do that or apply a fact tag if you believe in good faith that it's questionable, but don't delete it or pressure the original editor of brand new articles to be writing at a featured-article level. In general I see no need to create any special rules for gay performers or any other micro-class of articles. The existing norms for bio articles are just fine, as interpreted through the filter of the gay porn content (e.g. lists of awards, notable individuals, reliable publications), and adding rules just becomes instruction creep. I don't like redlinks and try to remove them from articles where I'm actively editing a section. Other people don't, but mass campaigns to delete redlinks are going to run into some opposition. Deleted articles may be recreated per the CSD limitations on the subject. If it isn't substantially the same as the deleted article, and arguably overcomes the reason for deletion, it should be fine. Whether it survives another deletion attempt depends on the strength of the article and sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
A couple caveats. It is acceptable to develop a local consensus on a single article regarding what the sourcing and inclusion standards will be for a list. My experience with this is at List of Internet phenomena, where we more or less insist on both a source, and a blue link. Unsourced entries and redlinks get removed promptly - if we didn't do that the article would become completely unmanageable, and full of every day's latest Youtube Poop. Contrast that with Sonoma County wine and some similar articles, where there are unreferenced redlinks to wineries we think are notable but simply don't have articles. That serves as a good guide for creating new ones. Second, many gay (and straight) adult industry performers and workers try not to broadcast their real-life identities and background. For some that is to avoid scorn from their friends and family back home - there still is a lot of disapproval. If a person's birth name, parentage, birth city, etc., isn't widely reported, Wikipedia shouldn't be the main publisher of this information. That's related to WP:RS. I would say that if AVN or some other widely read substantial source is okay with printing someone's real name, we can be too. But if you find it only in an obscure video credits section, no. That reason alone could be a good justification for requiring a citation link to a reliable source, for videographies, names, and vital stats. It's not an attempt at censorship, but rather an attempt to avoid outing. If that makes these articles a little more difficult to write, that's a reflection of the outside world, not a double standard on Wikipedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the well-reasoned summary, I enjoyed reading it and agree with the points you raised. Ash (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I've seen too many exchanges between DC (and allies) and other editors and censorship is the heart of this debate. There's very little good faith involved in these "anti-porn crusaders". - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"Anti-porn crusaders"? I am literally amazed at some of the misguided comments these discussions seem to provoke. Wikidemon, thanks for following through and joining this discussion, and thanks also for having a rethink after your first comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

New (long) comments

I don't see any problem in itself with Ash creating stubs for redlinks, in fact this should be encouraged. As for what articles Ash has chosen, I would prefer to look at the results. If a substanial number of these fail to survive an AFD, then I would agree there's an issue here that needs to be looked at (hopefully by Ash him/herself without prompting), but failing that, let's not argue over what Ash should target. In particular, if Ash feels that our coverage is lacking of people from outside the US (not that this is a unique problem to this list) then I would welcome him/her writing well sourced articles on notable people to improve our coverage in those areas.
For recreations, I would agree recreating them in userspace would often be a better bet (or perhaps better, userify the deleted article if it's expected it may have useful info). This would also provide more flexibility for people to edit the article if they feel they need more time (although they should not think having the article in userspace means they can spend an indefinate amount of time on it) and would hopefully avoid unnecessary messy AFDs where people yell that it's too soon and other people say it's never going to establish notability any more then last time. Obviously this isn't compulsory but I would encourage all editors to consider it. And again I should emphasise I consider this a good rule of thumb for all BLPs in particular and may have even said that before. Again ultimately I would go by the results. If someone frequently recreates articles in main space for them to be deleted again, I would again suggest this person consider their actions but failing that, there's no real need to make a fuss over it.
Also, I've emphasised recreating and creating above, but the same applies to anyone who continually submits an article for AFD but it survives, unless of course the person has attempted to have the issues resolved on the talkpage but went nowhere and the issues were only resolved after an AFD.
As for redlinks, well the RFC is closed. I'm not sure what the results are. But either way if Ash is willingly creating stubs for redlinks, then this doesn't seem to be an issue anymore. If the RFC doesn't agree with keeping out redlinks, then unless those opposed to keeping out redlinks change their minds, there's not much we can do but I do hope we can agree to keep out redlinks.
I have no view or knowledge of awards other then to note that the secondary criterion is primarily intended to be a shortcut. If we find most people who've won the award meet the main notability requirements, i.e. they have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources then it's resonable to accept that award is a good shortcut. However if we find most people who've won the award have little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources, then the usefulness of the award for establishing notability is questionable. Note that this applies to all articles and all notability criteria, and I'm pretty sure I've emphasised it in some way in discussions unrelated to pornography.
Also I think we should take care with linking to commercial pornography sites as sources because they are primary sources which should usually be used with care (and again I've commonly promoted this outside pornography related articles, in fact overeliance on primary sources is one of my pet gripes as regulars at BLP/N may attest). In particular, we should take great care in using it to source what movies someone has appeared in particularly if it's not an official site for the person, or in alleging details about the person (not that it's clear to me these usually belong in this list). However there's no problem with linking to someone's official site in an article as we do for many other articles, even if it's a commercial pornography site although again I'm not so sure whether this is something necessary in this list.
P.S. On the point about murderers above, I would emphasise that any list of murderers is almost definitely not going to allow redlinks, I doubt there'll even be much dispute. And similarly any list of murders or article on an alleged? murderer would not get away with relying on generally held to be unreliable sources (it seems unlikely IMDB would be of particular relevance but whatever similar example).
P.P.S. As for the mutual recriminations, well I'd have to there have been problems on both sides. Accusing either of an agenda like censorship/morality, anti/pro porn, pro/anti-gay or whatever definitely doesn't help the discussion any. Similarly continually bringing discussion to unnecessary areas. However both sides have also offered some useful suggestions and in some cases cooperated in beneficial ways. In other words, what we need is more of the later and less of the former. It's clear that people here often have quite different views and their views and actions are influenced or sometimes perhaps clouded by their world view, but both sides clearly want the best for the encylopaedia and while we may not agree on what that is, it's an important thing to remember. In particular, the primary problem here appears to me to be a big gulf in the views of stuff like general notability criteria and how important it is; and how to handle and what are BLP issues (and potential issues). I strongly suspect this gulf extends to many areas of the encylopaedia not simply pornography, therefore assuming that pornography is a big part of the problems is unhelpful. Also I would note that while humour and sarcasm have their place, they should be avoided here given the problems mean they could easily lead to misunderstandings.
Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_actors_in_gay_pornographic_films/Archive_4&oldid=1136930319"