Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Nominations & Notability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed guideline status 

message: Why is this listed in notability.. this topic isn't notable! --⁪frothT C 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  General principles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notability of Porn Stars versus "Mainstream" Stars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ready to become a notability criteria guideline 

message: 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)
thread_title: Closing

message: Could having an original film (not a compilation) named after a performer be added as a criterion? Examples: Desireé Cousteau, Inside Desireé Cousteau and Mark Dalton (porn star), Mark Dalton and Friends. —Chidom talk  04:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good idea. Should be added. --Haham hanuka 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. --Haham hanuka 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-titled films 

message: I've taken the liberty of modifying criterion 4 as follows (additions in bold):
:: "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through adult film pornography industry news sources or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets."
Which, without all the extraneous formatting (which I find difficult to assimilate at times), reads:
:: "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through pornography industry news sources or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets."
These criteria already apply to print pornography (as evidenced by criteria relating to magazines), not just film; consideration also needs to be given to online pornography if these criteria don't apply there currently. (I tend to think it's covered, but we may want to add additional criteria specific to the media.)
By all means, if you have an objection, feel free to revert my edit and discuss it here. (Like you need my permission to do so?) Thanks.—Chidom talk  18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberty taken 

message: I've just noticed (sometimes I'm really, really slow) that the first sentence under Valid criteria contains the phrase "erotic actor or actress"; I believe that somewhere along the line the decision was made not to use "erotic" or "adult" as a substitute for "pornography". 
However, I don't think the alternative that's been chosen is necessarily correct, either. Using "pornographic actors" describes the person themselves as being pornography (as  in pornographic film, pornographic magazine, etc.); perhaps the better terms would be pornography actor/actress (or, my preference, pornography performer, as I have noted before that not all of them can act).
I know this is late in the day, and it might be trivial enough to be ignored. It's just something I just noticed and wanted to point out, so I've done that. Thanks.—Chidom talk  22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pornographic performer, since this is more encompassing. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I certainly agree with "performer", but I disagree with "pornographic" - the performer isn't pornographic, what's being performed is, thus "pornography performer". Again, this may be way too much trouble to change globally at this point. Moving forward? Dunno.—Chidom talk  21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words and the alternative 

message: I thought i would make a note here.  This is dirty-dan CEO of the company who owns in N. America Anna Marek rights, we are not the same owners who own these videos in other areas of the world.
Anna maybe one of the most famous models of the foundation period of the net.  Her bio is both on the Color Climax and our sites.  Our 2 companies have a very different relationship with Anna and we certainly have never worked with each other on Bios or any details about Anna.  The Bios mirror each other as they are accurate.
Anna has appeared in 4 major films, and in 15 issues of Color Climax Maqazines, and Several other major companies publications.  She remains the most popular model of Color Climax of all time and will appear again in another magazine.  Anna has been involved in the adult industry from turning 18 till now past her 30s.  You can see her age and change on the covers on the annamarek.com site.  All her films were done in Dec/Jan areas of 1992.  Her first photo shoot is pretty easy to date with forensics as a copy of P.M. magazine can be seen in the bookcase and is the Dec 1992 issue.
I am not sure the debate here, but Anna is even in the IMDB database of actors and something going on here seems pretty shallow that this is occuring when 2 major competitive and unrelated companies along with 2 others in Europe all have the same bio information with no interaction.  I think it would be a shame to delete this.  The person who wrote this emailed me and said he had been threatened by a member of your group who took offense to Anna and told them some bogus story they heard rumors about her age being younger then 18.  More of this hysteria and misconception.  I was not impressed at all.... nor am I now impressed with seeing all this... but hey, is your site and you can run it guess any darn way you want and not up to my expectations.  The facts are there and can be seen at multiple points ... but seems the people here have some very complex concepts on what they want as proof.  Maybe on future model releases we need ask for DNA scans and personal histories to be attached and ask of models to wave all rights to personal privacy to make some at wikipedia happy for total transparency?  AMAZING!
Peace,
dirty-dan@hornyrob.com
:* The discussion regarding the deletion of this article is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Marek ("AfD page").
:* A performer's own website is usually a promotional vehicle, not a reliable source of information about that performer; therefore, information there should be verifiable by other non-related, independent sources as well.
:* The "bio" referred to above comes from unverifiable sources, as is discussed on the AfD page.
:* Threats are not allowed at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks; any such incidents should be reported.
:* Likewise, Wikipedia is not censored. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer as well.
:* See Wikipedia:Verifiability and :Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information about what Wikipedia's requirements are for "proof".
:* Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (porn star), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (porn star) (second nomination), and Mark Dalton (porn star) for an example of other Articles for Deletion discussions and the resultant well-sourced article on a porn performer.
:* I'm sure others have examples of articles about straight performers, it's just not my area.—Chidom talk  18:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Message from "dirty-dan"

message: Point #5 on the list of valid criteria for establishing notability states, "Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets (the Air Force Amy rule)." My question: Is a "notable mainstream outlet" to be limited to the traditional print/broadcast media? Or is it to include mainstream digital and video media, such as CDs, DVDs and VHS tapes, available at mainstream outlets, such as Blockbuster, Barnes and Noble and Amazon? Dekkappai 18:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far it's meant traditional. You can get plenty of non-notable items at a Barnes and Noble physical store, and you can get literally almost anything at online Amazon. Another point is that newspapers and television and radio shows have large regular audiences, who read most or watch or listen to almost all their content, while stores like the ones you mentioned have customers who buy a very small fraction of their content. Appearing in a notable newspaper or program usually implies notice from a lot of people. Appearing on a store shelf doesn't. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the quick reply, AnonEMouse. The point I was hoping to make is that videos available at these mainstream outlets, as opposed to only an adult-video source, are available to a large, mainstream audience, just as printing in a mainstream newspaper does. People skip through the magazines, newspapers and TV also, they don't look at everything. However, the model's appearance there makes her potentially available to a large, mainstream audience. The same goes for a large, mainstream media outlet like B&N or Amazon. However, a DVD availabile only at an adult-entertainment outlet does limit the potential audience only to those seeking out adult entertainment. Dekkappai 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on interpretation of the rules 

message: I won't even comment on the "pornographic material by its nature is controversial" mind-set expressed at the top. Under your guidelines an entertainer has to be a star of more than 100 films or appear in one of two magazines of your choosing. It would be funny if you hadn't already elected yourselves as the guideline makers. Explain to me why a nude model that has been online for 3+ years isn't notable. BTW - Tiffany Teen's site was up for 2 years and goes untagged for notability deletion. There's no sense in adding pages for Alison Angel, Next-Door Nikki or many others that have been around for years because they won't meet your criteria. Marketa Belonoha will though, because Playboy called her sexy.Cheapcheap 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear. Right on. But there's no 'your' guidelines here, CheapCheap. Please participate in future attempts to change them, because I and some others definitely are of similar opinions. MadMaxDog 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cheapcheap, you have apparently misread the "100 movie" criteria. The 100 movie criteria is under "dubious methods of establishing notability". Secondly, your sarcasm or abrasive nature will not get you anywhere here -- working to achieve consensus will. You are more than welcome to talk about suggested changes or modifications to this guideline for discussion with other editors. Sarcasm has no part of this vital process. Thirdly, nude modeling isn't exactly under the purview of WP:PORNBIO, although it is under WP:BIO (WP:PORNBIO is merely an extension of WP:BIO focused on pornographic actors). Additionally, please be reminded that Wikipedia is neither an indescriminate source of information nor a database of all persons. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Refering to the dubious nature of the 100 movies criteria - I believe if you read it again you'll notice two things. One, the dubious section is clearly partitioned from the unacceptable section. Two,  the section is worded, perhaps unintentionally, to read that over 100 is acceptable and that the dubious nature arises in consideration that some foreign or past stars were notable even though they made less than 100 films. -- Turning to the specific problems of the "accepted test" both number 2 and 6 are poor. Even dubious. How notable is Penthouse's Pet of the month for September 1986? More notable than an actress appearing in 50 titles? And how exactly do we gauge what can be considered notable or prolific within a specific genre niche? By number of titles? -- As to the suggestion that nude modeling doesn't fall within this bracket, that reasoning is faulty. One of the "accepted" criteria under guideline 2 is nude modeling. That's not even taking into consideration the numerous video works that an individual model may offer that exhibit graphic acting. -- Last, just because I disagree with you completely doesn't make me abrasive. It doesn't even make me right. It just makes me a person you can't simply push aside because you believe you are right. Cheapcheap 02:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rules 2 and 6, the "playmate" and "genre niche" rules are a result of this being a guideline, rather than a policy. Guidelines are supposed to reflect the way the community actually behaves, rather than some academic reasoning. Several articles were kept specifically because individuals were playmates or notable in genre niches, therefore these were added. You can dig through the archives to see them being added; they've been used multiple times since then, and generally supported. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under these guidelines nude modeling is not notable 

message: It's seems to be the optimal solution. Porn stars are people. The is no other "Notability guideline" for a specific group of people. --Haham hanuka 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[WP:BIO]]? 

message: *Haham hanuka 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *AnonEMouse (squeak). There certainly are other notability guidelines for specific groups of people: Academics (professors); Musicians; Royalty. Also, Haham hanuka, you're a well known editor of porn star articles, so I'm not sure if you realize what will happen if this does get merged in. Porn star article deletion debates will become more difficult through obscurity, and some will be deleted since people won't have genre-specific guidelines to refer to. While, in theory, WP:BIO does cover "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." many people don't recognize that is what an AVN Award is. While WP:BIO does cover "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." but without WP:PORNBIO's "niche genre" we'll have constant arguments over what well-known means - basically no porn films beyond the "Golden Age" are "well known" by mainstream standards. We'll certainly lose the "name in title" criterion you're trying to keep above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: These criteria should not be considered when defining notability for erotic actors and actresses.
The person has a relationship with a well-known person.
Reason: Just because the person is related to a well-known person does not make that person notable. The person should be able to be independently notable without defining notability through a relationship.
: I don't know if I agree with this.  Julia Parton I think is more notable than another performers with similar filmographies because of her alleged relationship to Dolly Parton.  Wafah Dufour (who hasn't done porn, just modelling in men's magazines) is notable for being related to Bin Laden.  Think also of Donna Rice, Jessica Hahn, Monica Lewinsky, etc. (again not porn) all of whom, if the people they'd had relationships with were less famous, would not be notable themselves, but who are considered notable because of their relationships to notable people.  Anyway, I wouldn't think there'd be all that many porn stars that have blood relationships with or are publically dating famous people. Шизомби 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends what you mean by "famous people". The number of porn stars that have dated minor rock stars (that we do have articles on) is rather large. Rice, Hahn, and Lewinsky aren't strictly notable for relationships, they're notable for scandals, that's not quite the same thing. For example, less scandalous girlfriends of Hart, Bakker, and Clinton (say before marriage) would not be notable. Wafah Dufour may be a rare exception, and even for her I'd argue she's notable more for the interviews, magazines, and TV series, rather than the sheer facts of her being related; if she didn't get that media notice, she wouldn't deserve an article here. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, and unless we can cite that Julia Parton relationship bit, it should be stricken. Dolly Parton is known as a relatively religious person, and a relationship with a porn star could well be a highly controversial assertion, which would be against our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I'm going to go do a quick search, and if I can't find a reasonably good source, will have to strike it. I'd much prefer a good source, see Dick Smothers, Jr.. That's a better example - he's not notable for the relationship per se, but he is notable because he had stories about the relationship - a fine point, perhaps, but important. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sourced Julia Parton. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good deal, it's also stated in a number of books, e.g. "Parton, a cousin of the country singer, is publisher of High Society magazine and an occasional hardcore performer." Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide Volume II by Joseph W. Slade.  Anyway, it's also a lot less controversial to claim to be someone's cousin, since there's so many different kinds of cousins. Шизомби 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think some distinction should be drawn between what is actually stated in WP:NOT and that which is seen as similar to it.  Also, I've personally never come to a conclusion about how to interpret Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which seems opposite to the above assertion.  WP is an encyclopedia.  WP is an encyclopedia of film.  How far can we specify the type of encyclopedia that WP is before we reach something that it is not?  For example, the decision was made that WP is NOT an encyclopedia of Star Trek.  To that, I have to ask: why not?  Not out of any great love of ST, and indeed to have such extensive coverage of fictional things when so many factual articles are lacking would be embarassing, but embarassment isn't a counterweight to WP:NOT#PAPER is it?  So is WP an encyclopedia of pornography?  If somebody is covered in such an encyclopedia elsewhere, should they be covered here? The AVN Guide to the 500 Greatest Adult Films of All Time, The X-Rated Videotape Guides? : Шизомби 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the idea is that we are not quite the sum of all possible encyclopedias, we do have a general Notability boundary. There are minor entries that would fit in an exhaustive Star Trek encyclopedia, or an exhaustive porn encyclopedia, that wouldn't fit here. There was a failed Pornopedia project some years back, and there's a boobopedia project starting now that had a stated goal of making room for porn actresses not notable enough for Wikipedia. Here, let me link to that last one so the other guy doesn't get in trouble for doing it! :-). http://www.boobpedia.com AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing, though, how does one quite balance notability with not paper?  If a paper encyclopedia (even of a relatively trivial subject) does cover something, it's a little strange for WP not to unless it redefines not paper.  (Ironically perhaps, I tend to be more of an exclusionist here though.) Шизомби 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the IAFD have an editorial board who verify and screen information, or can anyone register and add films and biographies? If the latter, then having an entry there may be useful information, but does not really prove notability, and sounds more like a posting at a blog. I have seen AfDs where it was argued that we could not delete an entry for a performer because they were listed in the database. Does it really prove anything that they are? Edison 15:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid Criteria 

message: This is just a bulleted list of topics that may need to be discussed further and a brief description of issues or why the discussion needs to take place. It is not meant to be a place where those discussions begin. If these turn into sections of discussion we can certainly link the specific section to the listed item here.—Chidom talk  22:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional discussion needed 

message: Start by referring to the side conversations in the Criterion number seven thread.  I'm not sure where to go from here other than the long list of points in the discussion point topic, so I will let the other people who have been talking about this start and jump back in when I can contribute more. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide View 

message: I've just added Female adult bio info box at the article on Miki Mizuno, a Japanese (non-pornographic) actress, with modeling/Idol activities. Because she was a model/idol in her early career, measurements are data that are included in profiles in Japanese sources. But still, she's not an "Adult" performer. Is it wrong to use this info box in this case? Is there another one that will serve in its place? Dekkappai 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice the Female adult bio box is also used for models like Harumi Nemoto‎, who do not perform in adult videos, and (as far as I know), do not pose nude. Nevertheless, their measurements and other "adult"-related data are pertinent to their biographies. Dekkappai 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This has actually come up before. To be honest, use the tools that are best to use; if it's the female adult bio infobox, then so be it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, Thanks Joe. I was just wondering if there was any concern that we were implying the subject is an adult entertainer by using that template. But I guess not, if the text of the article doesn't. Dekkappai 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. Glad to help! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Female adult bio info box 

message: I've recently seen PORNBIO#7 ("an original film named after the performer") used in contentious AFDs more than once.  I even grudgingly closed one as "keep" per PORNBIO#7 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Jay).  But on reflection I think it is too arbitrary and too easy of a criterion, not to mention way too easy to game if someone deliberately wants to get a Wikipedia article. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 06:04Z
:If a film is named after them, it demonstrates popularity of the performer since the producers believe their name sells the DVDs, videos, etc..  I don't see it as a "game the system" clause.  --Oakshade 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Producers should not be given the exclusive right to grant notability to their actors. Any number of non-notable porn production firms can pump out any number of non-notable titles featuring non-notable performers. The "demonstrates popularity" argument is circular. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This was previously brought up at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28pornographic_actors%29#disputed. Considering the number of people questioning this arbitrary criterion and the fallibility of the arguments for it, I hardly think that there is any sort of consensus to keep it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prime example – Thursday Night Video, which names pretty much all of their videos after the girls in them. While TNV itself could be said to have a certain amount of critical acclaim, I don't think anybody would claim that Erin or Jolie or any of the TNV girls who's name grace the boxcover (except for Sarah Blake) are notable porn actresses. BTW, just because porn is "amateur" (I prefer the term "independent") doesn't mean its a vanity project. Iamcuriousblue 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, sorry, I did not mean to add "amateur" to imply any derogatory connotation. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion 7 

message: A thought to consider, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28artists%29#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Wikipedia:Notability (artists)]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sourcing requirements RfC 

message: 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)
replies: text:  This seems inconsistent with WP:N and WP:BIO. --Kevin Murray 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur. It was my understanding that WP:PORNBIO were extra criterion that indicated notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Multiple appearances in mainstream media outlets" is not notable? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WP:PORNBIO criteria 'do not on their own establish notability'? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "do not on their own establish notability" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'a noteworthy news piece' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Are articles in pornographic magazines independent sources? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Do magazine appearances count towards establishing notability? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Porn channel TV presenters 

message: 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...             ... even  (which is just a joke reference, but still.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: Seems resonable to me as well. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AF Amy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I was replying to Acalamari. Epbr123 23:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What, you didn't look at porn when you were 16? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never publicly encouraged it though. Epbr123 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid criteria 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Award Nominees 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Tag part 2 

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

text: An excellent addition. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Rationale and need for this guideline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  General notability guideline template 

message: While this argument makes sense, should we delete the article on Sophie, The Countess of Wessex as well since the only reason she's included in Wikipedia is because of her husband? Alvis 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationships not qualification 

message: This section has been copied from WP:N talk because it is clearly pertinent to this page and should receive broader participation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 14:56, April 12, 2007
: The way to do that is to link there, not to copy the section. If you copy, some people will respond in each place, and the discussion will be all over the place. Vis: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Wikipedia:Notability_.28pornographic_actors.29 
: Also note that that discussion seems to have stopped for 2 weeks. But I responded there anyway since you feel it should be reopened. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that there is a rigid right and wrong way to do it. And I belive that it is inappropriate to modify someone's posting to a talk page right or wrong, without discussion with them. But if your action yields broader discussion I'll go with it. If not I will return the text here.  Remember this precedent when we decide where and how consensus regarding changes to this page should be measured. --Kevin Murray 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I again request that you stop attempting to add tags to guideline pages without gaining consensus for the actions.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of being a constant disruption, why don't you look at the growing consensus and stop arbitrarily reverting our progress.  Anon clearly supported a compromise and that is very indicative of consensus.  --Kevin Murray 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, it isn't.  One or two people don't make a consensus, and it may be as much as people being worn down by your now week-long crusade, which has succeeded in only one actual guideline without significant protest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's disruptive to impose a major change that there's not consensus for. --Oakshade 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Kevin, I'm also worried by your "death of a thousand cuts" approach. I thought we had reached agreement about the #"do not on their own establish notability" bit with the discussion on this talk page, above, but you're still editing the page in defiance of that, and starting new discussions on this same issue in different places and different pages. I'm not sure you're genuinely trying to reach agreement, or just edit warring and forum shopping. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to bring the discussion from WP:N here, but you put it back there.  I'm not forum shopping; the notability infrastructure should be one forum.  --Kevin Murray 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it should be, again, there's no consensus for it.  So quit trying to force it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have no logical opposition to the changes other than sheer blunt objection to new ideas and continuity.  The latest proposed change has no negative effect on your purpose, but allows for a consistent message between BIO and PORN. --Kevin Murray 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kevin, you're discussing deleting page A on the talk page for page B. If your argument is really to delete all the subpages of notability, then WP:N is a fine place to discuss it, but you are splitting your efforts between that and targeting this subpage primarily. You even say there are multiple places on that talk page you're discussing this, but don't link to it, and imply it's our job to follow you around wherever you go, and if by chance we miss one, you cry "aha, consensus!". Hence the death of a thousand cuts - if you can't get your way one way, you'll try for another, and when several people show up to argue against it, you don't try to convince them, but just wait a week for them to get tired, then edit the page yourself. Stop. Convince first, edit later. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anon, let me clarify my goals: (1) to provide easy to follow non conflicting instructions for editors and participants at AfD.  (2) To do this with the fewest number of pages and the least practical amount of text at the necessary pages.  I am not specifically opposed to any sub-page if it fits these goals.  I have not in any way singled out this page.  If you look at the recent history of BIO, you will see that many good ideas from this page, PROF, and the Artist proposal have been included there.  This not only strengthened the argument for merging PROF and PORN into BIO, but made for a much clearer and useful guideline for many groups of people.  Interacting here has made me much more sympathetic to the need for clarity for this topic, but I think that the clarity can be provided by amending BIO, rather than having an entire separate page.  --Kevin Murray 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Laudable goal, but the way you're going about it is making enemies, rather than consensus. You also seem to assume everyone agrees with it, when that is what you are trying to prove. Let's pick one sentence from WP:BIO, which presumably you believe matches something from WP:PORNBIO: "Multiple features in credible news media." There, you've just made every professional journalist notable enough for inclusion ... while you have not made Air Force Amy notable, since the tawdry talk shows she appeared on can not be honestly described as credible.  Let's find another: "Entertainers ... Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." There, that's the 100 film rule, certainly prolific contributions, no? In fact, even 12 would be "prolific" for most actresses in other fields.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anon, have you heard the saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee?  It is a failure in any democratic institution that compromise breeds a strange end-product, but autocracy sacrifices too much in the interest of consistency.  Civilizations have constantly failed at making rules, so how are we to persevere at WP?  I’m not here to make friends, although that might be nice from time to time.  The point is to do what is best for WP which I believe to be the most important project to come from the internet.   All children who can access a computer have the world of knowledge at their fingertips.  It’s a cause worth fighting for, and stepping on a few toes for.  I see danger from over inclusion and under inclusion, the former can tarnish our credibility and accuracy, the latter will stifle enthusiasm of the contributors and leave holes in the knowledge base. --Kevin Murray 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is not meant to be a "consistent message" with BIO.  My objections come from many areas - the lack of consensus for an overriding guideline, the lack of consensus for major changes to individual guidelines, the wording in the template which fails to address issues at each guideline, etc.  I have no problem with new ideas, as I'm sure you're aware if you're actually paying attention to the discussions you're apparently involved in, so perhaps you should focus less on force and demeaning your opponents and more on getting support for your point of view. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff you seem to be very receptive to new ideas if they are proposed by you, but have demonstrated little capacity for compromise or acceptance of other peoples ideas.  My efforts here and at other sub-pages over several months represent much compromise and steady progress.  I've not seen much participation by you at the sub-pages until you began to oppose the template as aggressively as I have tried to promote it, here and at other sub-pages.  I'll admit that I'm impatient for progress, but please don't cloak yourself in some type of superior moral position.  I think that your goal is to bring down notability so that you can resurect you failed WP:AI project.  --Kevin Murray 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you don't really understand me that well, not that you've shown that in your comments toward me the last week or so.  You haven't been right about me yet, and this latest one is just another one in a long list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to be wrong.  Sadly, this is how I have seen it.  I realize that I get too enthusiastic sometimes and should be more cautious as well.  We clash but we do inspire people in both good and bad ways.  I'll try harder to see the better Jeff, which I am seeing in your last proposal at WP:N talk; a true move toward consensus building which may have me opening my eyes and eating my recent words.  --Kevin Murray 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I'm critical of your continued assertions about me - this is hardly the first time I've tried to organize thoughts in order to find a consensus.  So less judgement and more productivity, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)]] 

message: Hi.
I think this should get merged with WP:BIO -- we need less rulecruft. A small number of clear, well-written rules are superior to a large number of poorly-written and confusing, possibly contradictory rules, which can require significant and difficult studying to get any sort of meaning out of. See also WP:CREEP and WP:BUREAUCRACY. This is really a special case of WP:BIO and I fail to see why it really needs to be elaborated on. I'd suggest a merge with WP:BIO and if this page is to be kept at all it should be purely historical. mike4ty4 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am equally happy with either merging or Mike's proposal.  If merged, only the core ideas should go to BIO.  There is no need or all of the peripheral discussion, examples etc.  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes should be used for examples from actual AfD outcomes. --Kevin Murray 12:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge! 

message: See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the debate. --Kevin Murray 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:pnc]] nominated for deletion 

message: A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed policy change at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]]