Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1: Apr–Aug 2006 Gay stars & 100, notable essay, mainstream appearances, ready?, porn verifiability, magazine covers, internet models Number of criteria, 100 films, niche genre, rename to "erotic", test of time Japanese stars, not for relationships, 100+ films, & gay stars, criteria, magazine appearances, language Gay stats, crossing over, names in titles, Playmates Archive 2: Aug 2006-Feb 2007 Nominations, number of films, proposed guideline, guideline disputes, WP:BIO conflict, necessary? external links, self-titled films, American bias

Contents 1 Merge to Wikipedia:Notability (artists) 2 Sourcing requirements RfC 3 "Multiple appearances in mainstream media outlets" is not notable? 4 WP:PORNBIO criteria 'do not on their own establish notability'? 5 In regard to Yulia Nova AFD (and Japanese based porn culture) 6 Requirement for 100 films 6.1 Suggested number 7 "do not on their own establish notability" 8 'a noteworthy news piece' 9 Are articles in pornographic magazines independent sources? 10 Do magazine appearances count towards establishing notability? 11 Porn channel TV presenters 12 AF Amy 13 Invalid criteria 14 Disputed tag 15 Award Nominees 16 Disputed Tag part 2 17 Rationale and need for this guideline 18 General notability guideline template

[edit] Merge to Wikipedia:Notability (artists)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sourcing requirements RfC

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

[edit] "Multiple appearances in mainstream media outlets" is not notable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
    • The number of films can't be used to prove or disprove notability. Epbr123 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd like to point out my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yulia Nova-- it's not how many films you have, it's how you use them, so to speak. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:30, 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)

[edit] "do not on their own establish notability"

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

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

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

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

[edit] 'a noteworthy news piece'

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

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

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

[edit] Are articles in pornographic magazines independent sources?

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

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

[edit] Do magazine appearances count towards establishing notability?

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

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

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

[edit] Porn channel TV presenters

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

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

[edit] AF Amy

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to propose changing:

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Invalid criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Disputed tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Award Nominees

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

• I agree. Epbr123 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would support that concept as long as it doesn't open the door too wide. However, I still think that if the sources are there to write more than a stub, then you've got the notability regardless of the placement in the competition. --Kevin Murray 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree unless someone could give an example of how many such nominees there are for each award and how many awards are considered important enough. My concern is creating an extremely low bar for some category of endeavor. If someone is nominated or an Academy award that is pretty major, but such people will have numerous articles about them before that ever happens. If anyone in an industry can nominate someone they wish to promote, that just makes Wikipedia their handy advertising platform. Edison 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think only the AVN Awards and FAME Awards would be important enough. You can find a list of nominees for this years AVN Awards here and a list of FAME Awards nominees here. Some catgories seem more notable than others. Most of the AVN Award nominees already have Wikipedia articles except for the nominees in the 'Best New Starlet' category. The bar seems to be a bit low for the FAME Award nominees. Maybe only the FAME Award finalists should be included. Epbr123 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Just the AVN and FAME nominees (instead of all nominees) sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure how to go about phrasing that in the guideline, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Only one of the 38 female FAME Award finalists from last year doesn't already have an article. Epbr123 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree. This would set the bar far too low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think actually winning an award should be the "bright line". There are quite a few awards, even just from the AVN Awards. Being nominated could be part of an argument for notability, but shouldn't be the whole thing.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It also needs to be clearer which award winners count. For example, would winning Score magazine 'Newcomer of the Year' count? Epbr123 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Tag part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Rationale and need for this guideline

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] General notability guideline template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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