Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)/Archive 3

message: I believe this requirement is too high. I wish I had more time to talk about it at the moment, but I've seen some very notable performers (i.e., ones who passed WP:NOTE by the multiple mentions) who don't fit in this genre. I've seen actors deleted with 70 films on imdb, because they didn't officially pass (incidentally, I've never come across an actor with 100 films, with the possibility of exceptions like Ron Jeremy). I propose lowering the threshold to 50. Thoughts? Part Deux 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's just lowered it to 75. Epbr123 00:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 75 still seems too high for most actors, but I didn't want to make too big of a change at once. Do we have any suggestions as to an appropriate number? I also restored the Google Test to some form of legitimacy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Search engine tests hold no validity as notablility criteria at WP.  The primary discussion is at Wikipedia:Search engine test, but hsi is an essay without the weight of a guideline or policy.  There is no justifiacation for PORN to so radically depart from the consitency among other standards. --Kevin Murray 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again agree with KM. The invalidity of the Google test was one of the reasons this guideline was created. A modern internet porn star can get thousands of Google hits one year, and be completely gone the next. On the other hand, I reverted KM's edit removing it from the page altogether; we really, really need to keep saying that, otherwise people will try to use it in AFDs. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point; however this sets a bad precedent for requiring an exhaustive list of invalid reasons to keep articles.  If we were to attempt such a thing, it should be centralized and applicable to all subjects not just porn.  I've not yet seen a successful opposition to an AfD based on G-hits etc.  If so the admin needs to be admonished.  More rules are not a fix for poor training.  I removed the confusing lists again, but would support inclusion in a centralized essay or potentially a guideline. --Kevin Murray 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hardly call what we have an exhaustive list, and it's damned useful to have "invalid" and "questionable" criteria, due in part to the aforementioned restrictions of the genre. Those rules have taken time to develop. For example, the list points out things like "imdb profile != notability," something that could be forgotten if it went missing. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you're going to delete the list, delete it instead of reverting to a previous version before the consensus established below in #"do not on their own establish notability". —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requirement for 100 films 

message: This is a semi-straw poll. Add your suggestion below.
* 50 (Part Deux)
*Oppose any number of films as proving notability, since porn films can be made in a motel room with a camcorder, and they are low budget-limited distribution products.If someone wanted a Wikipedia article to aid sales, it would be easy to put a performer in 100 films. That said, 100 is better than 75. Edison 13:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested number

message: The way the Valid Criteria is worded, it seems biased in favour of relevance in film over relevance in print.  Is that really the intent? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about magazines? 

message: How about changing "serious contender" to "or have been nominated for"... , since there is a slight vagueness on what serious contender means?  Corpx 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "serious contender" was used because awards such as FAME awards have two rounds of nominations before the final winner is chosen. There were so many stars nominated in the first round that it was agreed that only stars nominated in the second round would be classed as notable. "Serious contender" was used to differentiate second round nominees from first round nominees. Epbr123 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, if the wording was changed to "or have been nominated for" a lot more pornstars of lesser notability will be allowed articles. This is a list of this years' FAME award nominees; it has about 150 nominees. Epbr123 10:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that that, but how much of an impact would that have on the current list of stars?  Corpx 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't requiring multiple nominations reverting back to the old method of using numbers to judge notability? Epbr123 01:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:N technically requires "reliable sources", so there is a number thing there too.  One nomination would be sufficient for me, but I'm willing to compromise Corpx 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe say "or have been the subject of nominations for..." ? Corpx 03:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  serious contender 

message: I just noticed in an AFD that being a Hustler Honey is listed in the WP:PORNBIO criteria as sufficient for notability, and I disagree. I don't think it should be an automatic qualifier for notability. Most pornographic magazines have some kind of centerfold pictorial, but they are not all created equal. Please compare (clicking the links helps):
* Playboy Playmates are always listed with name, birthdate, and a real article about their real biography. Just the appearance gives most a tremendous kickstart to their modeling career, it's seen as the pinnacle of glamour modeling. We've got an article on every one of them, and though some are short, each has some text to put into it. It's an iconic award, walk down an American street and say to a random male "Have you seen Miss March?" and they will know you mean the one in Playboy, even if they haven't bought an issue in their lives. Most of Playmates don't go into hard core pornography, enough so that when any do it's a somewhat notable story in the industry press. 
* Penthouse Pets are at least always listed with a name, birthdate, and profile; it's not quite that iconic, but many on the harder core side of glamour modeling aspire to it; it was, for example, a major motivation for Jenna Jameson#Early career. A large number of Penthouse Pets became, or already were, relatively big name porn stars, and when they do, being a Penthouse Pet is widely advertised as a selling point on their videos. 
* Now click on List of Hustler Honeys. Half of them are only listed by first name -- clearly these people aren't getting any major boost to their modeling career, no agent is going to be looking for "Anne" or "Amanda". Note even a number of those who did become famous used a different name for their Hustler appearance; they clearly weren't planning to widely advertise it. Their profiles and names are often completely fictional, sometimes blatantly so, having no details, sometimes no resemblance to reality. If just being a Hustler Honey were a sufficient requirement for notability, we would have to keep dozens of articles about "Terri", "Mia", "Phoenix", and "Tally" with no information than "a pseudonym of a model who appeared in Hustler with a fictional back story." 
I think being a Hustler Honey should basically count as an article and modeling appearance; in other words not nothing, but not much. It should not be sufficient in itself as if it were an award. I think the female should stop at Playboy and Penthouse; those are sought after as Awards, not just as modeling appearances. I don't know much about Playgirl; I do know that Richard Pacheco considered a big deal when he got it, more so than when he got a film award, so we should probably keep it until someone says something more definitive. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Seconded. Tabercil 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Given the support, and no objections for several days, removed from guideline. If objections show up, we can talk about it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 11:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hustler Honey should not be sufficient for notability 

message: Nowhere does in WP:PORNBIO does it say performers need to be covered by independant reliable sources. Does this need to be added to bring it inline with WP:N? Epbr123 16:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say no.   We wouldnt need WP:PORNBIO if WP:N's "significant coverage from independent sources" is met.   Corpx 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the point of WP:PORNBIO was to establish what "significant coverage from independent sources" means in relation to porn. Epbr123 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm, I thought it was to give notability to subjects in areas where significant coverage may not be present, like WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC, where other criteria confers notability Corpx 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PROF requires independent sources, and I'm not sure how music is an area where significant coverage may not be present. Epbr123 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They all have caveats which allow for notability if lacking "significant coverage" Corpx 19:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But those caveats are only used in exceptional circumstances, and they require their work to have received significant coverage. I don't think requiring independent sources would have much of an impact on the current criteria. Anyone satisfying the current criteria is likely to have independent coverage, eg. AVN winners will get coverage on the AVN website, prolific performers will get coverage at IMDB. Epbr123 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independant sources 

message: A discussion about deletion sorting of PORNBIO's has been started at WT:DS#Pornography_list. John Vandenberg 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion sorting 

message: I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I removed a recent addition to Valid Criteria because it is absurd.  It said, in effect, that an otherwise non-notable porn actor meets the specified condition for a porn article if s/he has done something notable outside of the porn industry  -- that is absurd, plain and simple.  Why should notability outside of the porn industry confer notability on a porn actor, such that s/he warrants an article as a porn actor?  72.76.90.32 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd addition to Valid Criteria