VivianDarkbloom (talk | contribs) |
AnonEMouse (talk | contribs) →This is not a guideline yet: Detailed rebuttal |
||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
: More usefully though, can you write exactly what you don't like about the guideline? Just that fact that it exists at all, [[sausage factory|the way the sausage was made]], or something specific in it? If you have a specific objection, it will certainly be noted - as I write above, this guideline is pretty good to responding to good arguments. [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
: More usefully though, can you write exactly what you don't like about the guideline? Just that fact that it exists at all, [[sausage factory|the way the sausage was made]], or something specific in it? If you have a specific objection, it will certainly be noted - as I write above, this guideline is pretty good to responding to good arguments. [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
::What I "don't like," aside from the fake consensus, is that you guys completely ignored what a guideline is supposed to be. A guideline is supposed to '''describe''' an existing consensus and reduce it to relatively clear statements. Instead, you guys got together and decided what you thought the standards should be, and kept making them easier and easier to meet. That's a bad stab at the policy process, which has well-defined procedures. Anmd your fake guideline doesn't describe what really happened at AFD. A couple of you guys regularly mentioned WP:PORN BIO in the discussions. The rest of the WIkipedia world ignored it. One of your guys even put the link in his signature, so a good chunk of those "references" are astroturfing. What's an easy way to tell yoou guys just made this stuff up? ''Playboy and Penthouse don't give out awards to porn.'' But that's one of your criteria. What's it describing? Nothing, except the fantasy world some of you guys drift off into. I also like the part about "niche" performers who are notable for being "notable." That's real helpful, too. And when pushg came to shove, you guys abandoned your fake guideline in the first AFD discussion where it could have been applied, because you couldn't bear the idea that your favorite dogfucking woman with breast implants wouldn't make it into WIkipedia. If you don't like my bluntness, I'm sorry, but that's too bad. This whole discussion needs more down-to-earth comments and a lot fewer euphemisms. [[User:VivianDarkbloom|VivianDarkbloom]] 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
::What I "don't like," aside from the fake consensus, is that you guys completely ignored what a guideline is supposed to be. A guideline is supposed to '''describe''' an existing consensus and reduce it to relatively clear statements. Instead, you guys got together and decided what you thought the standards should be, and kept making them easier and easier to meet. That's a bad stab at the policy process, which has well-defined procedures. Anmd your fake guideline doesn't describe what really happened at AFD. A couple of you guys regularly mentioned WP:PORN BIO in the discussions. The rest of the WIkipedia world ignored it. One of your guys even put the link in his signature, so a good chunk of those "references" are astroturfing. What's an easy way to tell yoou guys just made this stuff up? ''Playboy and Penthouse don't give out awards to porn.'' But that's one of your criteria. What's it describing? Nothing, except the fantasy world some of you guys drift off into. I also like the part about "niche" performers who are notable for being "notable." That's real helpful, too. And when pushg came to shove, you guys abandoned your fake guideline in the first AFD discussion where it could have been applied, because you couldn't bear the idea that your favorite dogfucking woman with breast implants wouldn't make it into WIkipedia. If you don't like my bluntness, I'm sorry, but that's too bad. This whole discussion needs more down-to-earth comments and a lot fewer euphemisms. [[User:VivianDarkbloom|VivianDarkbloom]] 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
::: OK, no euphemisms, but watch your assertions, please. They're outright wrong. Let me address them in order. |
|||
:::* I am aware that [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.]] put a link to [[WP:PORN BIO]] in his signature, being justly proud of having started it, however I made a serious effort to check that the references I listed in [[Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced]] were genuine references. Out of the 87 days of AfD, and 150-odd individual AfD discussions listed there, you won't find 10 there that are "astroturfing", much less than "a good chunk". |
|||
:::* "A couple of you guys regularly mentioned WP:PORN BIO in the discussions." Let's just count the unique ones using it in the first 10 AfDs from [[Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced]]. |
|||
::::# Coredesat [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Angel (2nd nomination)]] |
|||
::::# Joe Beaudoin Jr. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Angel (2nd nomination)]] |
|||
::::# JJay [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa]] |
|||
::::# B.Wind [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliyah Likit (second nomination)]] |
|||
::::# RJH [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa]] |
|||
::::# Sverdrup [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Rain]] |
|||
::::# GWO [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber, The Lesbian Queefer]] |
|||
::::# Satori Son [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber, The Lesbian Queefer]] |
|||
::::# Hong Qi Gong [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Milano]] |
|||
::::# BlueValour [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie Courtland]] |
|||
::::# Eluchil404 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie Courtland]] |
|||
::::# Feydey [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene Aspen]] |
|||
::::# AnonEMouse [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene Aspen]] |
|||
::::And that's just analyzing the first 10 AfDs out of over 120. Most of these users didn't even comment in making this a guideline. Want to analyze the next 5 Afds from there for unique users of this guideline? |
|||
::::# John Lake [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherie (actress)]] |
|||
::::# RFerreira [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherie (actress)]] |
|||
::::# TBC [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Vatsaas]] |
|||
::::# Voice of Treason [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crissy Moran]] |
|||
:::: I'm stopping just because I'm tired of clicking links, but it should be clear it is used by many, many unique users. Look at the next 15, or the next 100. |
|||
:::* "And when pushg came to shove, you guys abandoned your fake guideline in the first AFD discussion where it could have been applied..." I think you are referring to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chessie Moore]]? Look again - over half the discussion is specifically focusing on this guideline, and it is referred to no less than 3 times: by Dhartung, Tabercil (neither of which are in the above unique users list, by the way)... and a certain AnonEMouse. |
|||
::: Your assertions are unfounded, and your continued edit-warring on the guideline page is unacceptable. It should be obvious you are editing both against the evidence and against the majority. If you want to make more arguments, go ahead, that is what the Wikipedia process is all about, discussion. But please don't keep editing the guideline page without providing actual, researched, arguments, and, more importantly, seeing them convince people. [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:48, 31 October 2006
![]() Archives |
---|
|
Nominations & Notability
Here's a question for the group. An actress (or actor) is notable if they've won an award from one of the main X-rated organizations (e.g., AVN Magazine or XRCO). I'm currently in the process of sloooowly (<g>) adding in the nominations to the lists for the various AVN award years and that got me to thinking... what about if someone is only nominated but doesn't win? In other words, if she's a porn version of Susan Lucci? My early thoughts are this:
- A lone nomination by itself is not enough. A single nomination might be sufficient for an article to be created if they're up for an Oscar or Emmy (which have a broader base of competition and visibility), but not for pornography. Reason for this is as User:Geogre said in a AFD discussion: "Porn actresses have professional lifespans of a mayfly: they get enormous fame, huge numbers of appearances, and then disappear utterly in the course of 18 months." We need to filter out those flash-in-the-pans.
- Multiple nominations in a given year shouldn't qualify, even if from more than one award-giving organization. Same reasoning as in the earlier point.
- Only if the person receives nominations in at least three different years should they qualify as being notable. Two years is insufficient as it can be possible for someone to start towards the end of one nominating period, work through the start of a second then disappear. Three years indicates some longevity.
Thoughts from the peanut gallery? Tabercil 16:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind something like this, as so long as it indicates longevity. Nominations occuring three or more years would definitely indicate longevity, thus separating the "Susan Luccis" of porn from the "flash-in-the-pans". -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the nomination/award process for straight porn; I do know that what sometimes occurrs in the gay porn industry is that a newcomer will be nominated for an award one year and not win, and then another newcomer comes along by the next year and the previous year's nominee isn't nominated for anything. In the meantime, the previous year's nominee has gone on and made several films (most likely in supporting or co-starring roles), is still quite active in the industry, and is building a body of work. I'm not sure this changes the 3-year standard you're proposing, I'm just bringing it up in case others have thoughts on how to handle this sort of situation, as well.—Chidom talk 00:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why do "We need to filter out those flash-in-the-pans"? Wikipedia is *there* to provide info on obscure topics. And providing they were at least relatively famous at one point, their longevity is really irrelevant. I would hate to think one-hit wonder music groups wouldn't get articles! Stevage 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information... Once-hit wonders, like Right Said Fred, are still known. A "flash-in-the-pan" porn star is extremely obscure, unless they've made some sort of mark on pornography that makes them noteworthy. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 21:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I guarantee you that many a porn star whose article has been deleted as "non-notable" is in fact more well-known than Right Said Fred. Only on Wikipedia can a person who has made dozens of worldwide-distributed films that have been seen by literally millions of people be considered "not notable". wikipediatrix 04:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information... Once-hit wonders, like Right Said Fred, are still known. A "flash-in-the-pan" porn star is extremely obscure, unless they've made some sort of mark on pornography that makes them noteworthy. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 21:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why do "We need to filter out those flash-in-the-pans"? Wikipedia is *there* to provide info on obscure topics. And providing they were at least relatively famous at one point, their longevity is really irrelevant. I would hate to think one-hit wonder music groups wouldn't get articles! Stevage 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Number of films as a criterion
What is the reason for having an arbitrary number of films be sufficient for notability? Why not 200? Why have it at all? —Centrx→talk • 18:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Read the earlier comments on the page. It's been hashed around a number of times. Personally, I feel that by having at least some number as a mark for notability, it helps cut out the flash-in-the-pans and those actresses who only make one or two films. Note that people like Paris Hilton, John Wayne Bobbitt and Chyna, who have appeared in only 1 film each, will be caught by the mainstream notability criteria. Tabercil 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why should anyone be included based on the number of films they are in? If they don't meet some other better criteria, there aren't going to be any reliable sources on them. If they meet some other better critieria such that there are reliable sources on them, then it doesn't matter how many films they've been in. I question why any number at all should a criterion, save something that would make them truly unusual for being prolific, like 1000. —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Compare Wikipediatrix's comments, above, who has the exact opposite view. The basic idea is that a widely viewed performer is notable just as a widely read author is notable. Just how widely viewed someone has to be for that is debatable, but 100 popularly released films indicates at least tens of thousands of viewers... or even, as Wikipediatrix writes, millions. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- This proposal does not say the films have to be widely viewed, only that there must exist 100; many authors who have written several books, which sometimes take years to write, do not warrant articles on Wikipedia. Anyway, a closer analogy would be newspaper writers: it takes them only days or less to write an article and they are published and read even if they are subpar. —Centrx→talk • 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- More importantly, the widely read author is much more likely to have multiple independent sources that have written about him, which is the more relevant criterion. None of these porn star articles are sourced, the question is are there even reliable sources to source them with? (Some of them even have junk like "IMDB says she was born in 1974, while the AVN says she was born in 1973") —Centrx→talk • 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- There's part of the problem that the authors of WP:PORNBIO don't get: there exist thousands of failed books that have been read by virtually no one, but even a "failed" porn video ends up being seen by large quantities of people. It's the nature of the beast. And it's also the nature of the beast that even obscure porn films are viewed by more people than, say, mainstream flops like Basic Instinct 2, but there's not as much of an accompanying paper trail to show it, because mainstream magazines choose not to cover porn films. It's a frustrating Catch-22. wikipediatrix 02:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not to sound rude, but what is the basis for this statement? "Basic Instinct 2" - to continue your example - made close to 6,000,000 dollars just domestically, and was indeed considered a flop. Nonetheless, at $10 per ticket (which is probably over the average), that's still almost 600,000 that saw the movie (I can't imagine there were a statistically significant number of repeat viewings). I find it difficult to believe that anything approaching that number sees most adult movies, much less "flops." Luke Ford estimates that the average adult title ships only about 1000 units (a figure supported by Dan Ackman of Forbes magazine - same page). Mind you, I am of the opinion that the distinction made between "mainstream" performers and "adult movie" performers when determining notability are ridiculous. Nonetheless, this statement appears flawed, or at least unsupported. LWSchurtz 20:19 17 Oct 2006 (CST)
- Not to sound rude, but what is the basis for this statement? "Basic Instinct 2" - to continue your example - made close to 6,000,000 dollars just domestically, and was indeed considered a flop. Nonetheless, at $10 per ticket (which is probably over the average), that's still almost 600,000 that saw the movie (I can't imagine there were a statistically significant number of repeat viewings). I find it difficult to believe that anything approaching that number sees most adult movies, much less "flops." Luke Ford estimates that the average adult title ships only about 1000 units (a figure supported by Dan Ackman of Forbes magazine - same page). Mind you, I am of the opinion that the distinction made between "mainstream" performers and "adult movie" performers when determining notability are ridiculous. Nonetheless, this statement appears flawed, or at least unsupported. LWSchurtz 20:19 17 Oct 2006 (CST)
- There's part of the problem that the authors of WP:PORNBIO don't get: there exist thousands of failed books that have been read by virtually no one, but even a "failed" porn video ends up being seen by large quantities of people. It's the nature of the beast. And it's also the nature of the beast that even obscure porn films are viewed by more people than, say, mainstream flops like Basic Instinct 2, but there's not as much of an accompanying paper trail to show it, because mainstream magazines choose not to cover porn films. It's a frustrating Catch-22. wikipediatrix 02:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- More importantly, the widely read author is much more likely to have multiple independent sources that have written about him, which is the more relevant criterion. None of these porn star articles are sourced, the question is are there even reliable sources to source them with? (Some of them even have junk like "IMDB says she was born in 1974, while the AVN says she was born in 1973") —Centrx→talk • 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- This proposal does not say the films have to be widely viewed, only that there must exist 100; many authors who have written several books, which sometimes take years to write, do not warrant articles on Wikipedia. Anyway, a closer analogy would be newspaper writers: it takes them only days or less to write an article and they are published and read even if they are subpar. —Centrx→talk • 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
One hundred films
- Performer has been in 100 or more movies (resource: iafd.com). Note: this criterion has been accepted for performers in heterosexual pornography only. Discussion is underway about an appropriate test for homosexual pornography.
- Please allow me to voice my objection to this arbitrary criteria. This has been used to discriminate against not only non-heterosexual entertainers, but non-American ones as well. I feel that this line item should be removed entirely. 22:23, 29 September 2006
- I too feel that this is a totally bogus criteria. The number gives the appearance of having been selected to keep most actors excluded from using this criteria for inclusion. I believe that a better criteria for staying power is length of time in the business. A couple of active years would be far better and eliminate the concerns with other countries or specific genre films. Vegaswikian 23:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. I know there is another problem with the number of films criteria, is that it also is biased towards the current porn film generation, where you have hundreds of films being produced each month. Compare this to the situation back in the 70s and 80s where the number of films was much less. For instance, Ginger Lynn was arguably the biggest name in porn during the early 80s, and IAFD shows that she appeared in 221 films. Yet if you pull out all the compilations, and just look at her peak years of activity (84 to 86) she was in only 78 original films. Today's actresses can appear in that many films in one year easily.
However, having said that I do feel we need some form of bar for which to trim out non-notables, otherwise I fear we'll end up being swamped with performers. The IAFD page as of 7:40pm EST today says it covers 38,238 performers, and I shudder to think of seeing that many entries getting added to Wikipedia. Tabercil 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- We have enough factors to judge notability by, but this particular criterion is arbitrary and unhelpful. 00:06, 30 September 2006
- The number of films is in an 'or' relationship with the others, so it doesn't trim anything, it only expands the number of persons that satisfy this page. —Centrx→talk • 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems to cause more heat than light. Moved to the "dubious" section, with explanation. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Proposed guideline status
This has been in limbo too long. Either it needs to get smartened up and trotted out or it needs to be marked "historical" or somesuch. - brenneman {L} 10:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- A joke: A nuclear physicist walks into a bar, looking dejected. The bartender asks him what's wrong. "They deleted my wikipedia article. They said my contibutions to the field of nuclear physics weren't important enough!" The bartender replies, "It's a shame you got into that industry. If you'd have been willing to suck a horse's cock on camera for money, you'd have an article for sure!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- But seriously... I agree that this has sat around long enough. It should be redirected to WP:BIO. I think it's absolutely ludicrous that an encylopedia should have one set of guidelines for every type of person on earth, and a second, less-restrictive set of guidelines for porn. The very idea of it is silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- WP:PROF has sat around even longer. Personally, I would prefer to mark it a guideline. It has been around a long time, and has been successfully used in many AFDs. The main objections have been to the "100 film" rule, and the motion to strike that seems reasonable. After we move it to the "not sufficient for notability" section, I think we can get a rough consensus to accept the guideline.
- Note that this is not less restrictive than WP:BIO, just like WP:PROF is not less restrictive; it mainly lists specific professional characteristics that make for notability for our purposes. WP:PROF mentions that most professors publish regularly, and it's not enough for notability, however having notable students is; WP:PORNBIO will mention that most pornstars have many films and internet image galleries, and it's not enough for notability, however the following awards are. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd rather move the 100 film rule to the "dubious methods" section rather than the "not sufficient" one, which would better reflect how it seems to be viewed by people approaching it from angles other than current day porn (e.g., European & Japanese porn, gay porn, golden-age porn, etc.). Something like: "The hundred-film rule of thumb is best used to evaluate current films being produced for the mainstream heterosexual pornography business in North America. It is inappropriate to use in other circumstances." Thoughts?? Tabercil 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
General principles
Why is this listed in notability.. this topic isn't notable! --frothT C 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
What we should have is just a listing of the different kinds of awards or levels of scholarly research or whatever for the different kinds of persons. We should not have a separate subpage for each. If the same principle as these proposals is followed, we will have dozens of Notability subguidelines just for different kinds of persons. —Centrx→talk • 01:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- For example, the web content guideline names a few of the awards, but refers to a category. - brenneman {L} 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Notability of Porn Stars versus "Mainstream" Stars
The entire question seems odd in light of the not-at-all small number of "mainstream" entertainers who would utterly fail to merit an article on any similar set of criterea, yet have one nonetheless - see Kelly Vitz, to take only one example. Why are we even concerned about whether a porn star has become "notable" before he or she is allowed a bio on Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a "reference for the masses?" If I wanted to know about only notable porn stars, I could go to other sources. It is the user-created aspect of Wikipedia that allows for the possibility of finding an article on an otherwise relatively non-notable entertainer - mainstream or otherwise. When I wanted to know something about a minor supporting actress in a minor Disney film (i.e.: Kelly Vitz), I turned to Wikipedia in the hopes that the open format would allow at least the possibility that someone might have posted some information about her. Indeed - my faith was rewarded. But when I consulted Wikipedia for information on the minor porn star "Allie Sin" (aka "Naughty Nati" and others), I find that she had a page, but it was deleted. Could it be reasonably claimed that she is somehow less relevant in her profession than Kelly Vitz is in hers? Should that even be an issue of concern? Doesn't Wikipedia exist, at least in part, to "fill in the gaps" left by more "official" sources, who are more concerned about including only those who are "notable" in their fields? Far from quibbling about the specifics of the "notability" guidelines, I question why it is that such a limit is set on biographical entries for adult entertainment performers and not for mainstream performers as well. LWSchurtz 17:04 16 Oct 2006 (CST)
- Basically, you're talking about the ol' notability debate. I won't rehash the whole thing here, but the gist of it is that the further away a subject is from being notable, the less likely it is that we'll be able to find sources for the article, and the less likely any sources we do find will be what we consider reliable. As for your second point, however, about having two seperate (and not necessarily equal) sets of standards for porn people and everyone else, I agree completely. Porn people should face up to the same set of standards as anyone else (WP:BIO), and vice versa. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- And that was in fact my main point, although you do bring up a valid concern. Whereas Kelly Vitz may indeed be more minor relative to mainstream film than Allie Sin is relative to the porn world, it remains a plausible objection that we may be more likely to have reliable sources of information about Kelly Vitz than about Allie Sin. This is due not only to the custom of pseudonyms for porn performers, but also because the social fact of the matter is that there will be more "reliable" (i.e.: mainstream) documentary information about an exceptionally minor mainstream performer than about a porn performer with ten or twenty times as many film appearances. Still, to emphasize my (our) point here; if it were the case that we could find a source that would be considered reliable enough (such as information from a company that she made a film with, or information from a porn-world magazine, but not, say, her putative MySpace page), I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to have an article on Allie Sin, even if it has no more information than that sparse amount found in Kelly Vitz's entry. As long as the sources are credible, there is no reason someone who wasn't wearing clothes in her films should be held to a higher standard for deserving an entry than someone who was wearing clothes in hers. LWSchurtz 02:21 17 Oct 2006 (CST)
- And that was in fact my main point, although you do bring up a valid concern. Whereas Kelly Vitz may indeed be more minor relative to mainstream film than Allie Sin is relative to the porn world, it remains a plausible objection that we may be more likely to have reliable sources of information about Kelly Vitz than about Allie Sin. This is due not only to the custom of pseudonyms for porn performers, but also because the social fact of the matter is that there will be more "reliable" (i.e.: mainstream) documentary information about an exceptionally minor mainstream performer than about a porn performer with ten or twenty times as many film appearances. Still, to emphasize my (our) point here; if it were the case that we could find a source that would be considered reliable enough (such as information from a company that she made a film with, or information from a porn-world magazine, but not, say, her putative MySpace page), I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to have an article on Allie Sin, even if it has no more information than that sparse amount found in Kelly Vitz's entry. As long as the sources are credible, there is no reason someone who wasn't wearing clothes in her films should be held to a higher standard for deserving an entry than someone who was wearing clothes in hers. LWSchurtz 02:21 17 Oct 2006 (CST)
Ready to become a notability criteria guideline
I believe this proposed guideline is ready to be tagged as a full Wikipedia:Notability criteria guideline.
Reasons for this include:
- Because it's used. Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced demonstrates that since the date this guideline was proposed, roughly 5 months ago, it has been referenced in over 120 individual Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussions, and in 87 different days of AfD - that's more than every other day. There has never been a single week of AfDs when this proposed guideline wasn't referenced.
- Because it reflects current community consensus and behavior at AfD. Over the 5 months, in response to active discussion here (see over 100KB of discussion at the talk page archives), and at the AfDs themselves, several new criteria have been added, such as
- the "multiple notable mainstream media appearances" which was made to reflect the Air Force Amy decision,
- the "prolific within genre niche" rule, which was made to reflect the Via Paxton decision
- the multiple gay pornography awards, added by User:Chidom, which have since resolved many gay porn AfDs (both to delete and to keep).
- the most contentious criterion, the "100 films" rule, has finally been moved to the "dubious" section.
- Because we need it, to shorten the discussion that tends to crop up otherwise. Pornography is an inherently controversial issue, arguments about it will be heated, an accepted consensus guideline that makes AfD arguments productive by giving something to actually refer to is very useful. "More light, less heat." Before this guideline, common porn star AfD arguments included
- "Keep certainly passes google test [1] and seems like she's fairly notable in certain circles... Think would count as a notable porn star... though not sure what the guidelines on those are."
- "Being on IMDB makes her notable"
- "I watch A LOT of porn and I have never heard of her. I haven't heard of her, she ain't notable."
- "I'm concerned that this debate is becoming a debate on the merits of porn stars (on wikipedia) in general."
- "For the reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flick Shagwell"
In becoming a notability criterion subset of Wikipedia:Notability (people) (usually called WP:BIO), it will join the accepted Wikipedia:Notability (music), which provides specific guidelines for musicians, and the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (usually called WP:PROF), Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, and Wikipedia:Notability (royalty). This guideline will list extensions of WP:BIO that will be especially suitable or not suitable for porn performers, and will tend not to come up in other biographies. It is not an exception to WP:BIO, just a clarification. Just as WP:PROF writes that having many publications is standard and not exceptional for academics, WP:PORNBIO writes that having many films and Google hits is standard and not exceptional for porn stars. Just as WP:MUSIC lists "international tour" and "charted hit" as points that generally show notability for musicians, so this guideline lists specific awards that do show notability for porn stars. These are issues that don't come up nearly as often for most other biographies, so it makes sense to put them in a special section like this one.
In asking for discussion on this, I'm also trying to follow the advice of respected admins User:Radiant! and User:Aaron Brenneman who strongly urge that the proposed status of this guideline be resolved one way or the other. I would also like to follow the lead of Radiant! in marking the main Wikipedia:Notability page as a guideline, despite much opposition, due to its being actually used. I believe that due to the reasons listed above, it's time to mark this as a guideline.
Now I'm going off to "advertise" this discussion on the Village Pump and other relevant places. As with anything connected to Wikipedia Notability and Pornography, the ensuing discussion is probably going to be controversial. Let's try to keep it from becoming heated, and instead keep it productive. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support I think its about time we recognize this for what it is, a guideline, people use it as such and there is no harm now in tagging it as such. --NuclearZer0 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Useful guideline. However I'm a bit unsatisfied with criterion 2 which is sort of American-centric and would rather see it removed entirely. I fail to see how being a Playboy playmate is in itself establishing notability. Pascal.Tesson 16:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's a bit of discussion on that in the Archive; most importantly, historically in AfDs, being a playmate has been considered sufficient to keep. See Category:Playboy Playmates, pick any one, and click on the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" links in the infobox. I believe we have a complete set. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support, holding my nose I think there is consensus, although I am one of those that would generally prefer us to lack articles on most of the subjects that this will pass. (Recognizing consensus includes those who disagree but don't object as people that accept the consensus.) In addition to the evidence mentioned above, it also gets used in deletion review discussions, but the closure method on deletion reviews mean that the evidence is not available via What ;inks here. GRBerry 17:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support as per Nuclear's comments. Tabercil 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support A wonderful guideline that has surpassed even my expectations. Well done, everyone, well done. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 18:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support and mirror Nuclear's thoughts. Olessi 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Closing
As mentioned above, there is no formal procedure for making a notability criteria guideline, however the above is a pretty clear example of Wikipedia:Consensus, unanimity even. 5 days of discussion have gone by with no arguments in opposition. I'll mark it as a notability guideline. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a guideline yet
Guidelines must have consensus. Six guys can't establish a guidleine. If your Village pump notice was sufficient to start the guideline process, the vast indifference with which it was met the Wikipedia community shows that there was no consensus for it. A guideline proposal must be supported by the community, not ignored by it (outside of its handful of writers). And really, all that tripe about unanimity. You know it's been criticized by users like me in various places -- including on the talk page just before you started the inadequate poll. Take a look at how other guidelines have been created and what kind of support was required for them. Don't try to sleaze this through. VivianDarkbloom 18:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I did take a look, you will notice I refer specifically to the fact that there is no procedure for doing this, and to the way Radiant! marked Wikipedia:Notability itself a guideline, which is the most recent, and most relevant one I could find (this is, after all, anotability criteria guideline, not just any kind guideline - it depends directly on Notability). As with Notability, my strongest reason for marking it a guideline isn't six people supporting, but 120+ Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussions citing it, more than one every other day for the last 5 months: see the Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced page. That's pretty strong. Even so, I still made a formal notice and asked for comments, and got unanimity over the course of a week. Frankly, this is a model of guideline making. Please, feel free to place more notices, and try to establish consensus to unmark it - however, until you do, I do believe it should stay marked as such.
- More usefully though, can you write exactly what you don't like about the guideline? Just that fact that it exists at all, the way the sausage was made, or something specific in it? If you have a specific objection, it will certainly be noted - as I write above, this guideline is pretty good to responding to good arguments. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- What I "don't like," aside from the fake consensus, is that you guys completely ignored what a guideline is supposed to be. A guideline is supposed to describe an existing consensus and reduce it to relatively clear statements. Instead, you guys got together and decided what you thought the standards should be, and kept making them easier and easier to meet. That's a bad stab at the policy process, which has well-defined procedures. Anmd your fake guideline doesn't describe what really happened at AFD. A couple of you guys regularly mentioned WP:PORN BIO in the discussions. The rest of the WIkipedia world ignored it. One of your guys even put the link in his signature, so a good chunk of those "references" are astroturfing. What's an easy way to tell yoou guys just made this stuff up? Playboy and Penthouse don't give out awards to porn. But that's one of your criteria. What's it describing? Nothing, except the fantasy world some of you guys drift off into. I also like the part about "niche" performers who are notable for being "notable." That's real helpful, too. And when pushg came to shove, you guys abandoned your fake guideline in the first AFD discussion where it could have been applied, because you couldn't bear the idea that your favorite dogfucking woman with breast implants wouldn't make it into WIkipedia. If you don't like my bluntness, I'm sorry, but that's too bad. This whole discussion needs more down-to-earth comments and a lot fewer euphemisms. VivianDarkbloom 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, no euphemisms, but watch your assertions, please. They're outright wrong. Let me address them in order.
- I am aware that User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. put a link to WP:PORN BIO in his signature, being justly proud of having started it, however I made a serious effort to check that the references I listed in Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced were genuine references. Out of the 87 days of AfD, and 150-odd individual AfD discussions listed there, you won't find 10 there that are "astroturfing", much less than "a good chunk".
- "A couple of you guys regularly mentioned WP:PORN BIO in the discussions." Let's just count the unique ones using it in the first 10 AfDs from Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced.
- Coredesat Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Angel (2nd nomination)
- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Angel (2nd nomination)
- JJay Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa
- B.Wind Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliyah Likit (second nomination)
- RJH Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa
- Sverdrup Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Rain
- GWO Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber, The Lesbian Queefer
- Satori Son Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber, The Lesbian Queefer
- Hong Qi Gong Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Milano
- BlueValour Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie Courtland
- Eluchil404 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie Courtland
- Feydey Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene Aspen
- AnonEMouse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene Aspen
- And that's just analyzing the first 10 AfDs out of over 120. Most of these users didn't even comment in making this a guideline. Want to analyze the next 5 Afds from there for unique users of this guideline?
- I'm stopping just because I'm tired of clicking links, but it should be clear it is used by many, many unique users. Look at the next 15, or the next 100.
- "And when pushg came to shove, you guys abandoned your fake guideline in the first AFD discussion where it could have been applied..." I think you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chessie Moore? Look again - over half the discussion is specifically focusing on this guideline, and it is referred to no less than 3 times: by Dhartung, Tabercil (neither of which are in the above unique users list, by the way)... and a certain AnonEMouse.
- Your assertions are unfounded, and your continued edit-warring on the guideline page is unacceptable. It should be obvious you are editing both against the evidence and against the majority. If you want to make more arguments, go ahead, that is what the Wikipedia process is all about, discussion. But please don't keep editing the guideline page without providing actual, researched, arguments, and, more importantly, seeing them convince people. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, no euphemisms, but watch your assertions, please. They're outright wrong. Let me address them in order.