Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)/Archive 1

message: I think it looks pretty good.  I'll try and think about whether there's anything I'd add or change. Шизомби 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I just added a section detailing why the Google test shouldn't be used. Any thoughts or concerns on that? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that makes sense.  I think an Alexa test of the performer's official website would also be problematic. Шизомби 17:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Google Trends isn't a great tool to use either, because it is based off Google's search results (and it's also a beta-product to boot). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comments 

message: That's very long, sorry, but I hope it helps!
:The question of notability of pornography has been a complicated one since pornography is, and establishing criteria of notability for porn stars and movies in many ways reiterate the old question that is “should we talk of pornography at all?” Before the 80s, Film Studies scholar would only talk about “the canons,” while popular entertainment was disdained because of lack of artistic relevance. With the introduction of Cultural Studies approaches, the academic world started to think that any cultural artefact that circulates within a subculture has some relevance as it reveals something about the people who use it. Establishing criteria for the relevance of a porn performer or movie then falls into the old approach that will only consider relevant the study of canons, as if the rest is void of social relevance.
:Furthermore, as pornography is a strong subculture, establishing a consensus on notability is almost impossible, as someone outside of that subculture will never be able to judge efficiently what happens within it. Gay porn is a good example: nobody might understand the importance of one gay porn star if they are not watching gay porn. The fact that a user created an article for a porn star means that this performer means something to him, and that might be shared by others. Also, many gay porn stars have not done anything that is especially notable, but gay porn is very important to many gay men and a force in queer culture. Thus some porn stars play an important role in the life of some gay men, though this importance might be harder to describe. In addition, I think that Wikipedia offers a possibility for minoritary subcultures to gather, structure, and preserve their knowledges, so a lot of the process should be delegated to the people of those subgroups.
Suggestion:
:This said, I understand that we don’t want Wikipedia to go everywhere: I suppose it should not be a database of porn stars and movies, and certainly not a place for advertising porn. I think that the question we should focus on is not “What porn star is notable,” but “what is notable information on a porn star?” This could actually solve the problem, because if there is no notable information on a porn performer, well... they don’t deserve an article. Thus, I think that, instead of removing article on porn stars, we should first remove information in their articles that is not notable, verifiable, or that is dubious (and there is a lot of that.)
:Defining criteria for notable information is going to be another debate, I know. What is important is that we should not replicate the information obtained by porn industry sources (which are, more than often, a form of advertising.) First, biographical details are too often made up by porn studios: birth date, sexual experience, cock size (especially in gay porn), etc. They should not be on Wikipedia unless they are taken from secondary sources (i.e. an academic article, a published biography...) or referenced as such (eg. “His popularity was due for what was said to be a 14-inch dick.”) If we are to prove the relevance of something, we have to show our ability to go “meta” with it, while staying neutral: saying “Mr X. is the hottest porn star we have seen in a long time” is simply repeating what the industry says to sell more videos; saying “Throughout his career, Mr. X has been celebrated in the porn press for [reasons]” seems more like engaging the whole picture, and opens the door for criticism.
:Perhaps our work now should be to clean-up existing articles on porn and remove what seems to be directly taken out of a porn advertizement or to contribute to it without subtlety. And removing those links to “porn reviews” from commercial websites (and letting know the users that post them). One thing that bugs me, is the habit some have taken in gay porn articles to list all the performers in the videos listed in a porn star article. While the videography is relevant for the researcher that wants to seek more information about a performer, the details seem to make the article dense without purpose (and the information on the videos are available on online stores and with Google search.)
:However, some movies would deserve their articles too, and some not... should we start another discussion on the notability of porn movies articles???
Thanks for reading and feel free to disagree! Em79 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree with the above, and would suggest that a performer who only starred in a single film would merit inclusion if that film happened to be an iconic groundbreaking or blockbuster feature by industry standards. bd2412 T 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That last would be #4, "Performer has made unique, noteworthy contributions to her field", though I guess we should add that as a more specific bullet. Probably the iconic example of that is Bambi Woods. Another would be Linda Lovelace, though she's also notable as an activist. AnonEMouse 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability and porn: big debate

message: This is to formalize the infamous Air Force Amy rule, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force Amy, where the article was basically kept due to multiple minor appearances on Howard Stern and HBO. This is not quite the same as rule 6, "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy", since no one of her appearances was particularly noteworthy or controversial in itself, just their sum total amounted to notability.
I'd phrase it something like: "Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets". 
It may let us keep Gina Lynn, for example, who wouldn't seem to qualify otherwise (notable overbite?).
AnonEMouse 15:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe.  Although if a person is the sole person to appear on the cover of a DVD box and appear with their name, perhaps that is also an indicator of some degree of notability (or if their name is in the title of the movie). Шизомби 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems to be an unrelated issue. I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few movies with only non-notable performers, where "someone has to be on the cover". Maybe we could add:
"Appeared, with their name, as the sole person on the cover of a DVD from a notable company" ... though frankly that seems to be opening up a big can of worms. I won't fight to the death against this guideline, but I think it's better not. -- AnonEMouse 19:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am in agreement with AnonEMouse. It's not a criterion that I feel comfortable with adding, and it would cause more harm than good. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you think about the "repeated mainstream media appearances", though? Should we add it? AnonEMouse 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be fine with that, given that it was a criterion that saved Air Force Amy from deletion. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated mainstream media appearances 

message: Shall we move this to the main Wikipedia namespace for wider discussion? Make it an official proposal for notability guideline?
AnonEMouse 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been in the incubator long enough. Let's do it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Possibly it should be added to the centralized discussion template? Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log Шизомби 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we shall see. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready for prime time? 

message: But this will die in the arse if you try to make it policy/guideline/whatever.  You'll hear fifteen voices crying as one "no need for this, see WP:BIO" faster than a rat up a drainpipe.  Have a look at WP:MEME for an example. - brenneman{L}  05:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we shall see. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to be a party pooper 

message: We've got "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month)." as a criterion of notability. That's not quite the same as their cover - they're sometimes the same, but more usually not. What about magazine covers?
Specifically, I noticed Tiffany Rayne, whom the main author of this proposal nominated as WP:PROD. She has a Hustler cover. So, two questions:
# Are covers of major adult magazines as much criteria of notability as centerfolds?
# Is Hustler considered as major as Playboy or Penthouse? (I believe they have a monthly centerfold as well.)
(This wasn't really discussed when the criterion was added.)
AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions AnonEMouse. Playboy Playmates and Penthouse Pets tend to be far more notable than mere cover girls, as evidenced by their entries. Secondly, I don't feel that being on the cover of a major magazine is enough notability to justify an entry, unless the model is pictured repeatedly over time; most of the time, anyway, the cover girl is either the Playmate or Pet of the Month/Year. As for Hustler, it's a major magazine, but I'll freely admit that I'm not a Hustler reader, so I don't know if it has something similar to the Penthouse Pet or Playboy Playmate. (I don't see any related lists from the Hustler entry, so I assume not.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly called Hustler Honeys per hustlercenterfolds.com Шизомби 01:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and abo-fucken-lutely, if she's on the cover and a centerfold of one of the big three! There's only a dozen or maybe 13 a year, so out of BILLIONS of women on the planet there's 36 a year that wear that honor, hell yeah put 'em in here! Brjatlick 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine covers? 

message: Does this article intend to encompass models whose primary source of interest is Internet related? - Socks
: Eventually. As indicated in Wikipedia:How to create policy, it is impossible to try to cover every angle. The focus is more on porn stars at the moment than actual Internet-only models... so that's the only reason why Internet models aren't covered in this proposal currently. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Models 

message: I believe the criteria should also take into account proliferation of magazine appearances. A model who may have only made a few films, has won no awards, and has not appeared in Playboy may still IMO be notable if she's made many appearances in major magazines. I'm thinking, for random example, someone like SaRenna Lee (though that might be a bad example as she's done some mainstream work as well). 23skidoo 04:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an intersting point. Though how would we determine a "proliferation of magazine appearances"? Would all magazines count or just select few? Also, how many appearances qualifies as notable? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This also has to be related to the person's notability within a genre. For example, Via Paxton is currently up for AFD. She is quite notable within her genre (I even recognize the name), but she'll never appear on the cover of Playboy, so the policy is somewhat discriminatory as it currently stands. 23skidoo 12:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree with that section covering niche material -- the "Niche Criteria", if you will -- is necessary. Under the present notability guidelines, this isn't covered as well as it should be. But that's OK, this is a "living" proposal guideline that can change over time, as dictated by current events. (As always, I ask that everyone bear in mind that the burden of determining whether or not a performer meets the niche criteria is still up to the original contributors to said articles, and that they, under the criteria for speedy deletion, can be speedy deleted at any time for failing to assert notability.)  -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been a few days without further comment, so I've added the genre niche criterion. I'd be happier if there were a number attached to it, rather than just prolific but that would probably be different for different genres. I asked, above, what would make someone "prolific" within gay porn, but never got an answer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said, numbers are problems.  So are subjective terms like prolific.  Prolific in the genre of 'males who receive while drinking wine and smoking at the same time' might be prolific at 2.  While the genre of givers would be higher in a number based system.  However if you were to combine prolific with other criteria like ' and in a best of list and featured in a magazine' you now have less of a concern about about prolific means since its use is restriced by using it with other objective criteria.  I look at most criteria to be a way to control article quality by having a hurdle that keeps us from having to add everything.  Criteria should not be used to target, or give the appearance of targeting, a group with the intent of keeping them out.   Vegaswikian 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magazine appearances

message: Our fearless leader has withdrawn the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Via Paxton (second nomination) due to a unanimous collection of good arguments for keeping. The arguments themselves, however, aren't in WP:PORN BIO yet. I suggest that in the tradition of the "Air Force Amy" rule they should be codified as one or more criteria. Let's see; I read the arguments made were that she:
# Was notable and prolific within her (big bust) genre niche.
# Has made many (15) appearances in major magazines. (I'm not sure what major means in this context - major within the bug bust genre only, or major by terms of absolute sales? If the latter, what are the magazine sales that should be considered major for our purposes?)
# Has had a movie that is just about her, with her name in the title, produced by a major studio.
Which of these should become PORN BIO criteria? Or are they not notable in themselves, unless someone fulfills all of them? If the latter, should we add another section for "minor criteria", criteria that don't qualify a performer by themselves, but do if the performer fulfills several, say three, of them? If the latter, we could probably add "has made unique appearances on many Web sites" and the Google rule there.
AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that section covering niche material -- the "Niche Criteria", if you will -- is necessary. Under the present notability guidelines, this isn't covered as well as it should be. But that's OK, this is a "living" proposal guideline that can change over time, as dictated by current events. (As always, I ask that everyone bear in mind that the burden of determining whether or not a performer meets the niche criteria is still up to the original contributors to said articles, and that they, under the criteria for speedy deletion, can be speedy deleted at any time for failing to assert notability.)  -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been a few days without further comment, so I've added the genre niche criterion. I'd be happier if there were a number attached to it, rather than just prolific but that would probably be different for different genres. I asked, above, what would make someone "prolific" within gay porn, but never got an answer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said, numbers are problems.  So are subjective terms like prolific.  Prolific in the genre of 'males who receive while drinking wine and smoking at the same time' might be prolific at 2.  While the genre of givers would be higher in a number based system.  However if you were to combine prolific with other criteria like ' and in a best of list and featured in a magazine' you now have less of a concern about about prolific means since its use is restriced by using it with other objective criteria.  I look at most criteria to be a way to control article quality by having a hurdle that keeps us from having to add everything.  Criteria should not be used to target, or give the appearance of targeting, a group with the intent of keeping them out.   Vegaswikian 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Via Paxton" rule

message: I've moved this from "Notability (pornographic actors)" to "Notability (erotic actors)" because the word pornographic is frequently seen as derogatory. Arguably, "adult film actors" would be better, because that's how the industry usually seems to refer to itself. But "erotic" seems to get the point across -- we're talking about people who get naked and/or have sex for other people's entertainment -- without sounding rude. --FOo 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue with this at present. However, I disagree that "adult film actors" would be better, seeing as the term "adult film" isn't specific enough of a term. Yes, while the adult film industry tends to use that terminology,   it's fairly elusive, unless you happen to be familiar with the connection between that evasive term and its connotation to pornography. Also, if this proposal does extend beyond actors into erotic models and other niche fields, we might be in for a few more name changes... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, pornographic is flat out what it is, look up pornography for the origin of the word. It's porn and it's proud, baby. Brjatlick 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to have to reconsider my view above. I do view "erotic" as a bit misleading, as Zeromacnoo stated. I would propose a straw vote to determine where everyone stands on the name. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 23:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "erotic" 

message: * Per Zeromacnoo. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 23:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to "pornographic actors" 

message: * but leave the shortcut as porn ;-P Kuronue 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to "Adult Film Actors" 

message: Per the straw poll and consensus regarding this issue, I have moved the page back to its proper namespace. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move concluded 

message: Reading the above comments, I wonder if a "test of time" rule might be usefully implemented.  I am thinking of performers who, though perhaps not meeting the other criteria, are still notable many years (10?) after they have left the industry.  A specific example might be Kandi Barbour, who remains popular to this day. Your thoughts? Oldcritter 06:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a fine criterion, except that I don't know how anyone would demonstrate "still notable". For example, for Barbour, how do you plan to show she "remains popular to this day"? AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that can get pretty subjective.  In her case, I would go by continued availability of virtually every movie she made, usenet traffic about her, prices paid at auction for magazines and photos of her.  It has been about 23 years since she left the business, and yet she remains marketable.  Does marketable equal notable?  I'm thinking yes, but I'd like to hear other opinions.  Personally, I find the wikipedia listiings of even the more minor porn stars from the 70's and 80's useful, particularly when coupled with a photograph to ID them.Oldcritter 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marketable does equal notable... if done correctly. My concern is where would we get this information? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience is that adult movies go out of print very quickly, except for those that are steady sellers.  I'm thinking if the majority of a certain performer's catalog is still available after, say, 10 years, that is pretty good proof they are still marketable.  The other points are much hard to quantify - maybe we can come up with something that makes sense.Oldcritter 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is how do we determine which titles are still in print? Also, finding out such information likely borders on personal research... On the other hand, if a movie is still in circulation, we must also ask why it is still in circulation. For instance, does it mean that it is in circulation because of a certain performer, or because it is considered a fine piece of pornography? We must also ask how we determine such things as well, without being POV. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Test of Time

message: Makes pages for these kinds of actors is very disturbing. It seems much too depraved to be making articles about. --Pichu0102 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your views have been noted and logged. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should not be a part of Wikipedia 

message: "around or over 100 films" is too weasely, IMO.  It should say more than 100 and people with 85 films at IAFD should be evaluated under criteria 4 and 8.  Eluchil404 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree because eighty five films is a fair amount, even for a pornographic actor.  The purpose of this proposal is not to create artificial barriers for notable porn stars, but to prevent vanity entries by mom and pop "entertainers" just figuring out how to use their digital camcorder.  Personally, I tend to look at this criteria along the lines of a grading scale of 1-100, 70-79 being a C, 80-89 a B, 90-100 an A and anything beyond that an A+.  When things start to reach down into the 70s then I start to scrutinize whether or not there are any other achievements which may or may not merit inclusion.  RFerreira 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that's not what the guideline says.  You're free to disagree with the guideline (it's only a proposal after all) but 75-85 is not "around 100".  I feel, and I think many feel likewise, that most professional porn actors are not notable and the guideline should reflect a more notable than average or a cream of the crop level.  Eluchil404 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  75 is not, but I would argue that 85 is close enough that we should not be wasting our time attempting deletion.  We host articles on hundreds, if not thousands of erotic film actors who aren't even in the ballpark of the upper 80s and 90s, and those are the ones I feel we should be discussing the merits of.  See my user page for an example.  RFerreira 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So basically you're saying that we should cleanup or remove the ones that have less than or equal to 75 films to their credit, then work on the tougher ones to see whether or not they should be included? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I am saying is that I feel someone who has partook in 80+ erotic films is notable, notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, and that we should be focusing on the many non-notable one-offs which plague the site.  With time, allow me to show by example what I mean.  RFerreira 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the more than 100 wording, seeing as this is the criteria that I derived from AfDs prior to this proposal. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, please note that the number of films criteria is only one of many criteria. If the subject meets another criteria in the list, then the # of films criteria doesn't have to be met. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That will have the opposite effect of what you seem to want - it will lead to deleting more, not fewer articles. Note that there is a criterion for "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." which pretty clearly covers gay films and fetish films. It was created (elsewhere on this very talk page, in fact), to cover the "big-bust" fetish, and has been applied to at least one gay performer article. Notice also that in  another AFD referred to here, the very second vote is "Delete - hasn't even won a[n adult film] award" - so if we get rid of criteria that can be misused, we won't have any left. By the way, I've asked several times what would be a notable number for gay performers, and have been ignored, but I'll try again. What would be a notable number of films for gay performers? AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish someone who is in a better position to judge than I would make a comment but a quick glance at :Category:Gay porn stars shows that men I have heard of have mostly 10-15 films (confirmable through IMDb).  To me that suggests notable longevity would be reached with 20-25 videos.  Any other takers? Eluchil404 01:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "As for the counting bean criterion for notability: it's quite off. Ryan Idol, one of the biggest gay (for pay) porn stars ever, appeared in around ten (10) non-compilation videos from 1990 to 1996. The reason he did so few was that he thought doing so many would make him more of a has-been a lot sooner. He was right. Idol is not alone...." Mtparnas 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording?

message: There has been an interesting discussion of this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rhodes (porn star), where a "Falcon Exclusive" has been nominated for deletion because he has only 7 films, well short of the impossible-for-a-gay-porn-star-to-reach 100 films criterion. This is a good case study f why the current criteria fail gay porn stars. This is a pretty well put-together article for a Wikipedia article -- it has references, it's properly formatted, linked and categorized, and there is a picture. But yet it is nominated for deletion, while tens of thousands of other crappy articles are left unmolested.
As Mtparnas notes: 
:"As for the counting bean criterion for notability: it's quite off. Ryan Idol, one of the biggest gay (for pay) porn stars ever, appeared in around ten (10) non-compilation videos from 1990 to 1996. The reason he did so few was that he thought doing so many would make him more of a has-been a lot sooner. He was right. Idol is not alone...." Mtparnas 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay porn notability

message: I was unaware that you were allowed to use proposed guidelines/policies to vote delete on AfD. Is this a valid reason? The article I'm referring to is the header (obviously), in which I've stated that she doesnt meet 7 out of the 8 criteria listed. To me this means the article should be deleted as long as you can use a proposed gl/pol. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 07:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the community agrees to use the proposed guidelines, then proposed guidelines may certainly be used. (If people didn't agree with them, they obviously wouldn't be used.) The reasoning is quite simple: new policies or guidelines are grown organically from already pre-established consensus. What WP:PORN BIO strives to do is codify already established AfD precidents as well as test drive others that are not so well established. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. Although my actual question is this: If an article fails 7/8's of the criteria, does the remaining 1/8th make it notable? And if not, can we add something to this proposal to that effect? SynergeticMaggot 07:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's a does he/she meet any of the bullets test.  If she meets 1 out of 8 she is presumptively notable under the (propsed) guideline.  Eluchil404 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats pretty weak. SynergeticMaggot 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's how these guidelines work, see WP:BIO.  I agree that PORN BIO could use some tightening but that's seperate from how it is set up.  Eluchil404 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As Eluchil said, WP:BIO works the same way, which is why WP:PORN BIO works this way as well. (Note that WP:PORN BIO is an extension to, and not a replacement of, WP:BIO.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Side comment - I don't think there is a single person in the world who meets all the criteria of WP:PORN BIO (begun a trend, crossed over, industry award, magazine centerfold, genre niche, others - all that at once would be truly remarkable). Even Jenna Jameson and Linda Lovelace only meet about half each. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Loren]] 

message: "The performer has many pictures and photo galleries online." why is this a non criteria? It says "does not mandate inclusion". Why not? Isn't a large number of photo galleries a kind of measure of popularity/notability ??? --HellFire 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This is a fallacy of the highest order, in my book, simply because of the nature of viral marketing, which the porn industry uses ad nauseum. Had this been pre-Internet, it could very well be argued (and doubtless supported) that the number and frequency of pictures constitutes some measure of notability. Also, many porn sites promote themselves by allowing other websites (referrers) to use photo galleries in order to promote sites. Hope that answers your question. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly second that. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, in other words, because the porn industry does a better job of promoting their actors online, their Google results are meaningless? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And you really don't think the mainstream film industry and music industry don't do the same thing for their acts? Not all porn companies use this "viral marketing" you speak of, and the ones that do don't use it for every single one of their actresses. There is hype everywhere, not just in the porn world. wikipediatrix 04:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures and photo galleries 

message: The proposal does not seem to address the fact that there are different quality films or is that the size of the budget?  As a result, someone is given the same credit for appearing in a big budget porn film as they are for a home movie.  Somehow this does not seem reaasonable.  05:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how would one determine movie studios who produce quality films? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't have a good answer, but the question came out of an AfD where the budget the studio uses was raised and apparently matters.  The point here is that all movies are not created equal.  So should the actors receive equal credit in any proposed guideline?  Vegaswikian 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then why treat porn films differently?  This seems to be unreasonable.  We are saying that if you appear in a main stream film that costs a fraction of what it does to produce a porn film you are notable and the porn film is not.  Vegaswikian 02:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You see my point. :) --FOo 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I agree but this is exactly what the proposal is tying to implement with a fixed number of films in the criteria.  I think this is a strong reason to drop the number of films as a criteria.  Vegaswikian 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plan 9's fame is a quirk - it is infamous more than it is famous.  It seems to me that we most certainly do discriminate against films based on budget.  Would every tiny budget B-movie that showed on a movie screen at some point in the 1950s or 60s be considered notable?  Would an actor who appeared in one such film? Some such films are perhaps notable for their appearance on MST3K, or what not, but is Diane Mahree really notable for appearing in "Manos" The Hands of Fate?  Wikipedia is not the Internet Movie Database.  Obviously, budget should not be the only consideration of notability, but I think that it can provide on criterion - if a movie has a budget of a certain amount, or is released by a major studio, it has proven its notability.  Movies released independently on tiny budgets have to meet some other criteria of notability.  I don't see why porn should be any different (if anything, the standards should be higher, given the sheer quantity of porn that gets made). john k 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie studios and quality of films 

message: I have changed the wording to 100 or more movies per the discussion above and the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Loren.  Eluchil404 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to 100+ 

message: There has been much talk lately about what number of films a gay performer needs to have been in to achieve notariety. I've done research on three studios—one major and two "niche"—for the year 2004, and come up with some pretty interesting stats. The major studio I chose is actually three studios under one family, Falcon Studios, which also publishes under the Jocks Studios, and Mustang Studios. (They also publish under the Falcon International Collection and Falcon Anthology Series brands, but there was no output at all for them for the target year). Falcon is probably the best-known brand in gay pornography; roughly the equivalent of Vivid Video in the straight porn industry. The two "niche" studios I picked were Raging Stallion Studios and Big City Video. Raging Stallion produces films with blue-collar, ethnic, and fetish performers; Big City focuses primarily on the Black and Latino market.
For 2004, Falcon Studios released 8 films under its own brand, 2 under the Jocks brand, and 1 under the Mustang brand, for a total of 11 films for the year. I was surpised to find that both Raging Stallion Studios and Big City Video released more videos in 2004 than all the Falcon Studios combined; Raging Stallions Studios released 14 films and Big City Video released 18. Vivid Video, the leader in straight porn industry, brandchannel March 1, 2004, produces 60 films per year. Forbes Magazine, March 7, 2005.
That's three to six times the output of a major gay studio. If you want to use 100 as a benchmark, divide it by six and you get 16.6. Now factor in the fact that there are fewer major gay studios for gay performers to work for than there are straight ones, and 10 videos starts to make a lot of sense as a benchmark for gay films.—Chidom talk  22:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a better idea: up the number to 1000 for straight performers :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay stats vs. Straight stats 

message: This is half-semantic, but "Performer has been successful in crossing over into other fields, such as mainstream acting or writing, per WP:BIO" does not make someone a notable pornographic actor.  It maks them a notable actor, writer, etc.  I'd argue that if, say, Jerry Seinfeld had a little-known porn career before hitting it big, he still should fail WP:PORN BIO, though he'd obviously sail through WP:BIO just fine.  In short, the line is unnecessary.  As much as it may seem that fluffing belongs on the porn bio page, policy fluff we can do without. JDoorjam     Talk 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone both appeared in "pornography"—Stallone actually performed as the "Italian Stallion" The Party at Kitty and Stud's (IMDB), while Schwarzenegger did nude modeling www.rotten.com, which includes photos)— arguably pornography for some. Neither is nor should be a factor in their inclusion here.—Chidom talk  18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft dispute of criterion #5 

message: Can we visit/revisit this? I still don't agree that being a Playmate of the Month (or equivalent) one time should be a sole factor for inclusion. The person needs to be more well-known than that.—Chidom talk  18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I am wrong but aren't new playgirls not normally playmate of the month the first time they appear, wouldnt that mean they have appeared more then once? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to magazines 

message: #One factor which we may want to consider as a sign of notability is whether the performer appears in films/videos which are named after himself/herself. Example: Ginger Lynn's credits include I Dream of Ginger, Blame It on Ginger, and Club Ginger.  Ron Jeremy was in Ron Jeremy on the Loose: Atlantic City.  Jenna Jameson starred in Jenna Loves Rocco and Brianna Loves Jenna.  If a performer's films are named after him or her, that suggests that the performer is a celebrity within the porn world.
#The issue of whether being a Playboy Playmate should be a notability criterion under WP:PORN BIO does not seem that important since the Playmates generally are considered to qualify under WP:BIO anyway. Many of them have articles and I don't recall them being submitted to Articles for Deletion.
#This is not a notability criterion per se, but if a porn actress's bio has little more content than saying that her films feature straight sex, anal sex, and lesbian sex, that seems run-of-the-mill in the context of porn. See Tanya James (AfD) for an example. It would be like if we started writing articles about basketball players like this:
:John Doe (born August 10, 1983) is an American basketball player. He is known for running, passing, and shooting. --75.2.64.208 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under what part of WP:BIO would a Playmate qualify? Just because none of the articles are being submitted for AfDs doesn't make them notable.—Chidom talk  22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Widely recognized entertainment personalities" and "enduring historical record in their specific field". More people will recognize a Playmate than all but the top porn stars, and more people compile lists of Playmates dating back to the first issue of the magazine, than compile lists of porn movie award winners. (In fact, the official XRCO awards site is desperately searching for anyone with a complete list of its own awards!) When I corresponded with Richard Pacheco (see the talk page), he gave the impression he was unaware of the New York Critics Adult Film awards until he had won them, and even after he was vague about who exactly the Critics were, but he was quite sure about which month and year he was the Playgirl centerfold. However, I think that we should keep the criterion, since there are a notable nuber of porn star Playmates, more than Playmates in any other profession. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a possible flaw, then, in WP:BIO. While a Playmate may be widely recognized and have an enduring historical record, if they had their pictures in a magazine one time and never appeared anywhere else, that doesn't strike me as notable. However, I also note that there's a whole article devoted to Columbia, Virginia, a town of exactly 49 people, so I guess being a Playmate or Playguy qualifies....—Chidom talk  00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More recommendations re criteria