Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

---

Improving PORNBIO

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2011#Pornographic actors/actresses I closed the RfC on PORNBIO today, and noted that there is strong consensus that the guideline is problematic. A significant number of people felt that the guideline should be removed completely, while others felt that the guideline should be improved. The attempt above (now closed) to improve the guideline by shuffling the awards does not go anywhere near what is required to satisfactorily address concerns and bring the guideline in line with GNG and general expectations. While PORNBIO is a subsection of Entertainers, it is not clear if the guideline is suggesting that the criteria for pornographic actors are in addition to WP:ENT, or are separate. Before attempting a rewrite of the guideline, it would be helpful to consider the purpose and value of having a distinct guideline for porn actors. Why are porn actors to be considered differently or separately to actors in other genre? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Porn actors are generally less notable than actors in other genres due to the lack of media coverage pornography receives. There are many highly prolific porn actors with awards and large fan bases who come nowhere near to passing GNG. Porn actors therefore need a separate less-inclusive guideline. Many of those arguing for PORNBIO to be deprecated appear to either be against the additional criteria in general or have the mistaken belief that PORNBIO aims to make the guidelines more inclusive for porn stars by providing addition criteria to WP:ENT. Epbr123 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If porn actors are not notable enough to meet GNG, how is notability being measured? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

To expand on that. Much of GNG's main statement is based on WP:V, which is a core policy regarding inclusion of material. That is, the material must be verifiable to reliable sources. For the material to be regarded as a standalone article there needs to be "significant" coverage in those sources. Reducing the need for "significant" coverage based purely on "lack of media coverage" is unlikely to meet support. There are many topics, including the local garage band, which have a "lack of media coverage". "Lack of media coverage" would be an inappropriate rationale for creating a specific guideline.

I would suggest that if there is an identifiable difference between porn actors and other groups of low notability entertainers, such as local bands, non-headlining stage actors, etc, who get little media coverage, that should be used as the basis for a guideline specifically on porn actors. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say we should reduce the need for significant coverage due to "lack of media coverage"? Epbr123 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A difference between porn actors and other groups of low notability entertainers is that they can have a "large fan base" and make "prolific contributions to a field of entertainment" without being notable. Top porn stars are less likely to meet GNG than top stage actors, bands, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure that a specific guideline for porn actors is needed: If it is felt worthwhile to have a standalone article on a porn actor due to a "large fan base" and/or "prolific contributions to a field of entertainment", then isn't that covered in ENT? What is required is information on what is specific about porn actors that requires a separate guideline. How is a "top porn star" defined? Wouldn't a top porn star - (Linda Lovelace?) - meet GNG? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say a porn actor should have a standalone article due to a "large fan base" and/or "prolific contributions to a field of entertainment"? Porn actors need a separate guideline because it is too easy for them to pass ENT, ie. to have large fan base and be prolific. That's about the fifth time I've said this on this page. Epbr123 (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm sorry, I have been misunderstanding you. I was reading your statements simply as arguments in favour of having a guideline for porn actors. I have gone back and it appears to me now that while you are saying that porn actors need a guideline, you feel the guideline should be written in a restrictive manner. And this is because even though porn actors may have a "large fan base" and/or made "prolific contributions to a field of entertainment", they may lack media coverage. Is that right? If that is so, then I agree with you, though I am still not clear why this would only apply to porn actors, and not to other entertainers. Is "large fan base" not a valid criteria for any entertainer? If there are reliable sources which deal in significant depth with an entertainer due to their large fan base, then is the field of entertainment relevant? I am not clear, essentially, on why porn actors are being treated differently - either positively or negatively. Why do we need a guideline to specifically include or exclude porn actors? I think if we can find a reason why we need to treat porn actors differently to other entertainers, then we are on the way to rewriting the guideline appropriately. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And if we can't find a reason, then we should open a RfC to remove the PORNBIO guideline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way, pornography is the only field of entertainment where fame doesn't equate to notability. Consider the problems that will be caused at AfD by removing PORNBIO. We'll get people saying "this porn actress passes ENT because she's been in four hundred films and pictures of her are all over the internet", which will actually seem a convincing argument to inexperienced users. Arguments like "this stage actress passes ENT because she's been in four hundred stage plays at my local theatre and pictures of her are all over the local papers" will seem less convincing to an inexperienced user. However, the most important use for PORNBIO is defining which awards are "well-known and significant" enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. If no other entertainment field has guidelines about awards, then WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. What are the benefits to removing PORNBIO, as it seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. Epbr123 (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion for a long time without getting involved, and I think Silk Tork has asked a very good question in terms of pinning down exactly what we might need (or not need) here. I note in Epbr123's example, the second actress is described as being "local". Let's say, instead, that it was a touring company that went far beyond being local, and there were lots of internet photos. In that case, it would be less clear that the actress was not notable. How, then, would the criteria need to be different between the porn and non-porn instances? Offhand, it comes to mind that a huge amount of the online porn business uses photos interchangeably in ways that other areas of entertainment might not. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am looking at the criteria for porn actors, and most can apply to all entertainers. "Has won a well-known award..."; "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years..."; "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media..." Crieria ENT 3 and PORNBIO 3 are the ones that might be difficult to merge, especially with Epbr's concerns about the ubiquitous nature of some porn actors. Isn't the assumption that reliable sources are establishing the notability not Wikipedia editors? That Editor Foo has seen hundreds of images of Porn actor Foo on the internet does not make Porn actor Foo notable; a reliable source making a comment about the images would be required. Images without comment by a reliable source would only establish that the person exists, it would not establish notability - that is my understanding. Promotional images, as in images appearing on websites with the aim of getting people to buy a subscription to a porn website, would apply to other entertainers. An actor may appear in multiple adverts, so their image appears all over the internet. We could add to ENT that promotional images by themselves don't establish notability, and that would cover all actors, including porn and rep. And we could make clear that appearing in multiple films is not by itself notable - it requires independent comment in reliable sources about these appearances that establishes notability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's true that we shouldn't treat porn actors differently, there's a case to be made for not deleting PORNBIO. The case is this: if you delete PORNBIO, then we are thrown back on WP:ENT -- and that will mean many more porn actor bios, because essentially every person who appears in a few porn productions, even in very minor roles, will rate an article.

Why is this? Because WP:ENT is, or can be interpreted as being, quite liberal. WP:ENT allows for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films... or other productions" or "Large fan base or a significant cult following" or "Prolific... contributions to a field of entertainment". "Significant" and "notable" are in the eye of the beholder, as is "large fan base" and "cult following"; Porn productions do not take a lot of time to produce, so the actors are in a lot of films, so "multiple" and "prolific" are usually a given, while ""other productions" allows for videos on internet pay sites. Or at least all of these points can be advanced.

Now suppose there was person who appeared as the office secretary in the Romanian Commissioner Roman films, but with only a few lines answering the phone and such, and no other acting credits of any kind. Well, "Romanian noir crime films" is a "a field of entertainment", "being on screen" is a "contribution", and five is "multiple" and arguably "prolific", while "notable" is subjective. At any rate, these points are arguably true. So this person, with a lifetime credit of 20 speaking lines in some obscure Romanian films, would arguably rate an article per WP:ENT.

Except, if someone tried that, the response would be "Don't be silly, this is not what is meant". Because nobody cares that much about Romanian crime films. Nobody watches Romanian crime films 14 hours a day or plays and re-plays their favorite scenes and obsesses about the actors. Nobody masturbates to Romanian crime films or fantasizes that the actors are in bed with them. In other words, nobody is really really really "into" Romanian crime films. So this issue does not come up.

Porn's different, because sex is different. As the saying goes, sex trumps everything. So if I understand the situation aright, these arguments can and apparently are advanced by sufficient numbers of editors to create a problem.

Is this right, am I getting this right? Because if this is the situation, what's called for is reform rather than deletion of PORNBIO. Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Answering to the SilkTork question, Is "large fan base" not a valid criteria for any entertainer?... I think it is one of the more vague and problematic criteria of the whole guideline, as having a large fan base without any other artistic/creative merit does not make anyone notable. IMHO this criteria should be deleted or at least rewritten, as it actually suggests that a lot of reality-show partecipants or any "YouTube artist" who is basically unknown to the public and the media but who has a large following on some social networks are suitable for an article on WP. - Cavarrone (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I take your point - though wouldn't that depend on a Wiki editor making their own judgement inappropriately? People using the criteria to support their own judgements would be inappropriate - a Wiki editor creating an article on a "YouTube artist" simply based on the hits the video has received is WP:Original research. However, if a reliable source has written significantly about a "YouTube artist"'s large fan base, then that would be an indication of notability. That by itself may not be enough for an article, but it's a valid starting point in indicating notability.

Perhaps we are looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope? Debating the finer points of the individual criteria is quite small compared to the importance of how people are using the criteria. We indicate that the criteria by themselves are not enough, but we don't make that clear enough. I have brought in some wording on "rule of thumb" used in other notability guides, as that seems quite helpful (and improves consistency between notability guidelines). Perhaps, though, we could go further in explaining how people are to use the criteria, and that an editor isn't supposed to be making their own judgement? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that telling editors not to use their own judgment is easy to say and easy to ignore, but I know what you mean. Speaking very tentatively, I might suggest that this discussion, so far, is going in the direction of saying that PORNBIO could be improved by focusing on the ideas that: (1) secondary sources are needed to establish notability, and (2) appearing in a large number of online primary sources does not contribute to establishing notability. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

These ideas are more appropriate for the GNG/General notability guideline than for a SNG, and point 2 is quite obvious, in which part of Wikipedia is written (or suggested) that appearing in a large number of online (or "offline") primary sources could contribute to establishing notability? WP:BASIC still says that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject" and there is no need to point out it further. - Cavarrone (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that makes good sense – if not GNG, then ENT. I think one of the ideas under discussion here is to make some porn-related improvements to ENT, and then dispense with PORNBIO. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The entire notion of PORNBIO should be eliminated. Pornographic actors and actresses should be held to the same standards as all other actors and actresses, which means ultimately that they should pass General Notability Guidelines by being the object of multiple pieces of independent, published reportage. There should be no "low bar" Special Notability Guideline" whatsoever allowing porn actors an "easy in" to Wikipedia. The current situation is ludicrous where long-term, career mainstream camera operators and movie industry professionals fail to meet muster at AfD, not to mention mainstream journalists, while every Biff and Buffy slimes in, usually with vapid bios and glossy promotional photographs. The situation is unencyclopedic, no matter what one thinks of porn — and I'm fine with it, in its place. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I could partly agree with you, but the current SNG for all other actors and actresses is WP:NACTOR and we're talking about this. - Cavarrone (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Carrite, you seem not to have read the preceding discussion. Many more adult entertainers qualify for articles under WP:NACTOR than currently do under WP:PORNBIO. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, look, let's do something. How about this? An RfC with an up-or-down "vote" on the following proposition:

Change "Pornographic actors and models" to read:

1) Has won best actor/actress, performer of the year, or comparable award at the AVN Awards, Hot d'Or awards, GayVN Awards, or AV Open.

2) Is in the XRCO Hall of Fame.

3) Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

How's that? #3 is really redundant and maybe needn't be be included. It's possible that AV Open (a Japanese award) should be replaced by the Pink Grand Prix (also a Japanese award). One of those, but not both, at any rate.

The advantage of this is that retails PORNBIO, thus addressing the problem that deleting it and falling back on WP:NACTOR would allow almost all porn performers in. At the same time, it tightens up PORNBIO considerably, addressing the objection that it's too lax.

OK? Shall I do this? Herostratus (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest that Hall of Fame inductees be added among the award winners (unless that is a blindingly obvious "comparable award")? Otherwise, I think this seems like a reasonable approach. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not blindingly obvious, it would need to be added. Are you referring to the XRCO Hall of Fame? That's the only one that I know of. I suppose I'm OK with adding that also, and I edited the above to include it. Are there others? Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

AVN and GayVN also have halls of fame. #3 refers to appearances in mainstream films, TV shows etc. rather than coverage in mainstream sources. The rationale for this is that supposedly only a top porn star would be able to make the crossover into mainstream entertainment. Epbr123 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

About the first two criteria, on the basis of which rationale did you decided these awards (avn, gayvn etc.) are more notable than other awards (xbiz, pink grand prix, venus etc.)? How is it possible that XRCO is notable in its Hall of Fame and not notable as standard award for best actor/actress etc.? And instead AVN is notable as standard award and not as Hall of Fame? And finally let me say, the sentence "It's possible that AV Open (a Japanese award) should be replaced by the Pink Grand Prix (also a Japanese award). One of those, but not both, at any rate" is a little absurd, as Pink Cinema and AV Cinema are two separate industries, with different actors, different directors, and different contents (Pink Cinema is NOT hardcore). I agree not all the awards are notable and could be useful indicate which are notable, but it seems you are interested in merely minimize as far as possible the number of eligible subjects, without great care in analyzing which awards are really important and which are not... Cavarrone (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, fine, so fix it. I'm just offering these as a basis for discussion. What do you suggest? Herostratus (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I just wanted to note that none of the discussion since my vote in the November RFC has persuaded me at all, and I remain of the opinion that PORNBIO is of absolutely no value at all to the encyclopaedia. There is no reason why porn stars should have separate notability criteria, and the general entertainer guidelines are entirely sufficient. PORNBIO is perceived as a joke whose main effect on the encyclopaedia is to permit "biographies" that comprise pure kayfabe and are missing such basic biographical details as the performer's real name or date of birth. These pornstar "biographies" by and large make a total mockery of our BLP rules and would violate the basic principle of verifiability if it wasn't for the fact that they are, in fact, not about actors or (more often) actresses but the fictional characters they portray. I feel we need to deprecate this guideline and then start a massive bonfire of the material that relied on it.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Deprecating the guideline wouldn't lead to any bonfires. Try re-reading the discussion. Epbr123 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't say it would. What I said was "I feel we need to". Do you see now?—S Marshall T/C 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Almost all of these people would largery pass multiple WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT actual criteria. With or without PORNBIO. Epbr123 wrote it at least one hundred of times. Cavarrone (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• If they would, then there's no need for PORNBIO, is there?—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes... indeed we can also decide to delete and incorporate PORNBIO in WP:ENT, but IMHO first of all we should do (small) adjustments to WP:ENT#3 and delete WP:ENT#2 (as said above, "having a large fan base" without any other merit is not, in itself, a sign of notability in any field; above SilkTork replied me that, if we have significant coverage in support of the subject, it may be good, and that's true... but if we have coverage we simply don't need any "additional criteria of notability"). Cavarrone (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• The need for PORNBIO has already been explained by three separate people in this thread. Can people please read the whole discussion before deciding to take part, so we don't have to keep going round in circles? Epbr123 (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• None of the explanations of the so-called "need" for PORNBIO has been exactly convincing, have they?—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to advance the discussion, you need to provide counterarguments for these explanations. Epbr123 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Epbr, about me, is not my intention rounding in circle. The need of a separate guideline for pornographic actors, different from other actors, is caused by the fact that otherwise some criteria of WP:ENT could be extensively interpreted up to allow the inclusion of any pornographic actor on the face of the earth. This is out of discussion. Well, maybe I'm wrong, but my humble opinion is that this problem is not so insurmountable as it appears, maybe would be enough a few adjustments in the formulation of actual NOTACTOR criteria to make it appropriate. And, to be clear, I consider criteria 2 of WP:ENT as wrong also outside of this specific discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• You're right that an alternative to keeping PORNBIO is to modify ENT. However, we still need to have criteria that clarifies what awards indicate notability for porn stars. Losing this criteria would cause a lot of arguing and inconsistency at AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Cavarrone is exactly right. The point Herostratus raises isn't exactly difficult to overcome. We could just add to WP:ENT that if we don't have a third-party reliable source that gives us basic biographical details (say, a real name and a date of birth), then we simply don't have good enough sources to include a biography on Wikipedia. If we do have third-party reliable sources that give us a name and a date of birth for a porn actor, then I see no issue with writing an article about them. But I think that rule would get rid of 90%+ of our pornstar "biographies".—S Marshall T/C 01:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Porn stars generally aren't very keen on having their real name's in articles, so we shouldn't bring in a rule that encourages it. Epbr123 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO just needs deleting, if porn "actors" don't want their names mentioning, then that that is their problem, not Wikipedia's. WP:NACTOR or WP:ENTERTAINER should suffice. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Jezhotwells. Epbr123, please link us a biography of anyone other than a porn star that doesn't list the subject's real name.—S Marshall T/C 02:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Come on guys, WP:BLP. Epbr123 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

the fact that someone uses a stage name may not be used as a pretext to argue that he/she is not notable. The use of stage names is a regular convention of adult industry, and your supposed rule would eliminate 99% of biographies, including those biographies which are supported from several reliable sources, such as this. Or otherwise, it would trasform Wikipedia in something infamous like Porn Wikileaks. And about "some biographies of anyone other than a porn star that doesn't list the subject's real name": Shai Baba, Mr. Niebla, Kaho, Lord Gordon-Gordon, La Diabólica, Comrade Artemio, Murasaki Shikibu, Longinus, Nortt, Nari Kusakawa, Arkas, Magister Wigbold, Monster Clown, Merton, Aengmu, Markus, Tsuchida Gozen, the "The Athena Painter", Blue Demon, Jr. Cavarrone (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the position that we don't need a separate criterion outside WP:ENT. And if there isn't enough to source a real name or basic biographical details, then there isn't enough for notability. We do not need to fill Wikipedia up with articles that are never going to get beyond a stage name and a list of films. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing reasonable in this position. Should we delete Plato or Socrates articles as we don't have biographical details about them? And as the exemples I posted above, we have tons of articles about people of which we don't even know the real name, mainstream actors, illustrators, spiritual figures, politicians, painters, athletes, notable criminals, etc.: in any field. Stop jokes, please.... Cavarrone (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This proposal isn't even worth debating. It will never get accepted as it's a gross BLP policy violation. Epbr123 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Requiring decent sources for biographies is pretty far from being a gross BLP policy violation, you know. Thanks for the list of inadequately-sourced biographies to delete, Cavarrone, I'll start tagging those now.—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some of those biographies are FAs. How does forcing an article to include the person's real name make the article adequately-sourced? This is a bizarre interpretation of WP:V and WP:BLP. Epbr123 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not suggest that every biographical article must contain the subject's real name so no need to discuss this complete red herring. I have consistently suggested that if we do not know any basic biographical information about someone, so that all we know is their stage name and the names of the porno they have appeared in and they do not pass the GNG, then there is no case for including them and no need for a special policy. Clear enough? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to S Marshall. Epbr123 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No joke. PORNBIO is a special case for people who do not satisfy general notability guideline but have appeared in porno. If someone if not the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to the extent that basic biographical details are unavailable, then I say that starring in a few porno flicks does not merit an encyclopaedia article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What I think might be ideal is a rule that says something like, "If we can't find a real name or a date of birth, then that establishes a presumption to delete." But that presumption has to be rebuttable, because Cavarrone does have a point: it's true that there are entertainers who deserve articles even when we don't know their real name or date of birth. In other words, I think want to deprecate PORNSTAR and replace it with a rigorous, objective version of WP:ENT that has a clause about not knowing real names, but the clause needs to distinguish between Homer and Sappho the Greek poets on the one hand, and Homer Missile the masked wrestler and Sapphic Sally the pornstar on the other.

I suggest we say that if we have neither a real name nor a date of birth, then the article is deleted unless the subject is covered in a printed encyclopaedia or biographical dictionary.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you keen for articles to include real names and date of births? Aren't there other criteria we could use that are more relevant to the person's notability and aren't so BLP violating, such as requiring a certain amount of info available about their actual career? Have you read WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy? Epbr123 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason for it is to establish some kind of qualifying criteria before it's appropriate to have a biography of a living person. Not "he was in a group porn scene and AVN who the porn company advertise with gave them a collective award for it. You can see him just there, third on the left behind the donkey", but, yanno, someone independent and reliable actually taking enough note of him to write the kind of biography that can serve as the basis for a proper, well-sourced Wikipedia article. My position is that if that information is already in the public domain then it's appropriate for us to repeat it, and if it isn't, then there's clearly insufficient sources to have a biography at all, so the article should be deleted. Before you try to dismiss this idea, please bear in mind that other experienced, longstanding users are showing up to agree with me about this.—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not always appropriate to include real names, even if it is reliably sourced. BLP states "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". Not all reliable sources are widely published. BLP issues aside, your idea wouldn't work as porn stars' birth dates are widely available, so wouldn't lead to less-inclusive criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're basically trying to say that people should only have articles if they pass GNG, I don't necessarily disagree, but see the thread below. Epbr123 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As linked by Epbr, this proposal spectacularly clashes with WP:DOB. And anyway, I still can't see which is the connection between the use of a stage name and the concept of "notability". People are notable for the things they do, not for the name they're born with. Cavarrone (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The connection is that if someone is so far from passing the usual notability guidelines that we do not even know their real name or other biodata, and if no-one has troubled to discuss their work either, then we have to seriously question whether we need to, or indeed, can, write an article on them. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What if reliable sources on someone's biodata do exist, but aren't easily available, such as someone from a non-English speaking country or from the pre-Internet era? This is one of the main purposes of these guidelines. Epbr123 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If sources exist, they exist. The purpose of these guidelines is to justify the writing of articles about people who would not otherwise qualify as notable. Ease of access to sources seems rather irrelevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've never had any trouble at all citing old sources, print sources or foreign-language sources on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, not everyone's a multi-linguist living near a huge library. Epbr123 (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• And what relevance does this have to PORNBIO? Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• One of the two main purposes of the additional criteria is to indicate whether a subject can eventually meet GNG once hard-to-access sources are found. Read the thread below if you want to learn more. Epbr123 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• What I see in that thread is a discussion about whether or not that might be so. It is not supported in the guidelines themselves. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To keep this from being another undecipherable RfC result, why not keep it simple and propose one change at a time. I would suggest starting with the changes that it would be easiest to get consensus for, such as (1) removing the 'nominations' criteria from "Pornographic actors and models" or (2) excluding group awards. Kaldari (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with your "method", and I suggest starting from point (2). I just note about point (1) that the multiple nominations criteria that is a standard for any kind of biographical (and not biographical) article, and that is "hard" not presume that someone who is nominated several times and in multiple years as performer of the year, best actress, best starlet is notable in its field. Otherwise we had people who very largery pass ANYBIO and do not pass a sub-SNG, and it would happen just for one category of people, and without an adequate rationale. A bio-SNG must not be discriminatory to a category of people, and must maintain a minimum level of consistency to ANYBIO. About point (2), the whole discussion started from a RfC about group awards and it is a problematic point also in ANYBIO, ie as I've recently seen in an AfD there are awards as "Best ensamble cast" that could include an indiscriminate number of people, also a couple of hundreds, and that are far away from indicating a (presumed) notability. So, I agree that excluding (or at least limit in their weight) group awards from PORNBIO would reach an easy consensus, and I'd also add to ANYBIO#1 something like "Group awards may not be sufficient". Cavarrone (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• The original RfC was quite simple, but still led nowhere. To get a decipherable RfC result, we will need to urge participants not to start any off-topic debates on deprecating Pornbio, or deprecating SNG, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I think we need to start with a straight-up RFC on whether to retain or deprecate it. If there's consensus that it should still exist, then there might be some point in deciding what it ought to say.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see how that RfC would be any different to the original, which failed to get a consensus. Anyway, deprecating Pornbio isn't an option until we can agree on a sensible way to modify ENT. Epbr123 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Useless proposal, even if we deprecate PORNBIO we would find the same criteria we deprecated, larger and stronger, in actual ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Clarifing, if you deprecate criteria 1 & 2 of PORNBIO you will have the same criteria, in a larger form, in ANYBIO#1, if you deprecate criteria 3 of PORNBIO it would return in WP:ENT#3 and again in WP:ANYBIO. Not considering how problematic would be criteria 1 & 2 of WP:ENT (it was wrote so many times)... and I've not yet read valid arguments against this simple "finding of facts". Instead of solving a problem it would result in tons of problems. - Cavarrone (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• If that's the case, let's deprecate PRONBIO right now and discuss ENT. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Considering how difficult is been so far to reach consensus on a simple change to PORNBIO, making the required changes to both ENT and ANYBIO may be harder than you think. Epbr123 (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have asked at WP:ANRFC for an admin to assess the consensus in this discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for future discussions

I can tell you that the above is likely to be closed as "no consensus for anything". To avoid that in the future, one way would be to make separate threads for the various ideas advanced above like "abolish all PORNBIO criteria", "porn-industry awards do not count towards WP:ENT notability on Wikipedia" or whatever else you think needs proposing. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun/Little Fatty debate

Hi! There is a debate over whether Qian Zhijun (actor) is now notable enough for Wikipedia,. Please see: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Qian_Zhijun Especially for people who know Chinese, it is appreciated if you review the noticeboard post!

Also, does anyone know how I can find the box office numbers of "The University Days of a Dog" (一只狗的大学时光)? Official DVD sales would be good too! WhisperToMe (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Children named in articles

I have been reverting non-notable children named in articles, especially about schools. This is being challenged at Frisch School‎ with the edit summary including "...the "children" included are not irrelevant people, and they were consulted before inclusion."

I have a real concern from a child protection perspective that we should not be giving out the names of children and the school they attend. Firstly the children fail every notability criteria, their names do not add to any encyclopaedic value, their names are ephemeral - they will be different children involved in each successive year. The argument that they have given consent is not relevant - in many societies children cannot give informed consent until they are 18 and we cannot know the ages of children named in articles (even if they said they were 18 we could never know the truth of the assertion). My question therefore is whether children who are not in any sense notable can be mentioned in articles. Before I wade in again , I would value any other views from more knowledgeable/ experienced editors. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, people don't have to be notable to be named in an article that already exists, but if people are going to be named then that should be backed up by a reliable source about the subject as per WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My issue with the Frisch School‎ article isn't so much with child protection issues but with the fact that there is no earthly reason to name these children in the first place. They're not notable people and they hold positions that usually change every year. Too many school articles include the names of teachers and pupils who are really completely non-notable. You wouldn't generally write an article about a company and include the names of its executives, except maybe for the chief executive if it was a really notable company and a viable independent article could be written about them, so why do it for schools? The problem is that the most prolific editors of these articles are often pupils at the schools themselves and like to write puffery about their school and include the names of their friends and pupils they look up to. It's certainly not encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring notability, I would say by both our BLP policy and general stewardship to privacy of children (whether they're editors or not), that we can only mention the names of children attending a school if that is stated in a reliable third-party source. Without sources, they should be removed on sight. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone and to Necrothesp for being bold and excising the section where I had just trimmed at the edges.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Business people

Am I missing something or are there others who'd find a notability guideline for White-collar workers particularly useful.

I occasionally come across articles about motivational speakers, authors of business books, and various consultants of this or that "business solution". In some cases, a judgement of notability can be made under WP:AUTHOR. However, I'm often forced to fall back on WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, but they're so general that I'm left not really knowing how to proceed.

I'm not requesting a full Wikipedia:Notability (business people) guideline. Just a short bullet list of agreed criteria would be useful. Having said that, I would like to see some sort of clarification of what constitutes a reliable source in this field. There's so many business publications, both general and industry specific, that, unless a source is blacklisted, all I can do is assume it's reliable and hope for the best.

ClaretAsh 13:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• For business persons, we simply will have to go by GNG or BIO. I've thought about it much in the past. It's safer, cleaner to go the GNG/BIO way. Wifione ^Message 13:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate. I ask because, when I first came across Wikipedia:Notability (people), I was surprised by the absence of such a guideline. The various consultants, keynote speakers etc for whom such a guideline would cater, are businesses. They advertise, sell their services and pay taxes just like sole-traders, partnerships and corporations. They can and will spam WP just as readily as any other business. However, they are not clearly covered by WP:ORG. In other words, there is a difference between "John Smith" and "John Smith™" that isn't fully accounted for in current guidelines. What we want to write about is John Smith but, often, all that appears in the article is John Smith™. Therefore, to me, the absence of such a guideline is inexplicable. However, if you foresee difficulties or disadvantages of some sort, I'd be very much interested to know. ClaretAsh 14:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In sole proprietorship concerns, the brand Jim Collins will be considered equivalent to the man Jim Collins. We shouldn't be differentiating the two as technically, if there is no difference between the two for the reliable sources, there is no difference to us. A motivational guru who sells his business through his name will have the double advantage of being rated as per the coverage of his brand. One reason why names like Blue Ivy Carter are trademarked, copyrighted and the stuff is because of this - the name of the person defines the [future] brand and vice versa. However, the moment a Michael Porter sells his consulting through the Monitor Group, you'll have enough reliable sources to consider whether we should have separate articles (or merged articles or no article) depending upon the expanse of coverage in reliable sources. Jack Welch versus Jack Welch Management Institute. Stanley Kaplan versus Kaplan Inc. Reliable sources coverage defines whether we have one single article or separate articles... and so on so forth. In summary, I feel we're pretty comfortable following GNG, BIO, ORG to handle these issues and do not need discrete sections on this topic. Do give your views too in case you think I'm going wrong in my understanding. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 16:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am wary of the instruction creep involved in creating yet another notability guideline, and I am inclined to agree with Wifione's analysis. ClaretAsh, can you explain more about why you think that WP:GNG is inadequate for businesspeople. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I see Wifione's points and agree. However, I think s/he might have misunderstood some of what I wrote but that was my fault for inadequately adding to the middle of a paragraph I'd already written and saved. What I was trying to suggest was that, when some self-promoter opts to create a page about themselves on WP, they're not writing about themselves, they're writing about their brand (their image). It's the difference between an encyclopedia entry and a press statement. That being the case, and it also being the case that some of these self-promoters operate as businesses (e.g. business consultants, professional speakers etc.), I guess what I'm really proposing is that WP:ORG be extended to apply to them. That might be simpler than the instruction creep inherent in a new guideline.

As for why I think GNG et al is inadequate for the type of article I mentioned above, the short answer is that it doesn't elaborate with examples. Looking at WP:ORG#Primary criteria, for example, I see sections on "Depth of coverage", "Audience" and "Independence of sources", each of which elaborates, sometimes with examples. It's fine to point to the general notability guideline but I've only been here a year. I don't know about the various discussions that decided that this type of source is reliable or that type of of coverage is significant. We have additional guidelines because it is sometimes difficult to determine how significant is significant. Of course, the obvious argument here is that, if I'm not able to make such a judgement about an article, then I shouldn't be editing/prodding/AfDing it. However, if I'm the first (or only) user whose path a bad article crosses, then its clearly up to me to do something. Extending WP:ORG (assuming that's better than starting a new guideline), will make it a bit easier to judge an article's quality and act accordingly.

BTW, I'm sorry for taking so long to get to the point but I tend to develop my thoughts while I write rather than before. ClaretAsh 11:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, ClaretAsh. I think that I now have a better grasp of your concerns, but pls correct me if I have misunderstood something :)

It seems to me that you have two overlapping concerns:

1. That there are a lot of self-promotional business biographies
2. That the use by some businesspeople of eponymous companies may mean that their biographical articles are better assessed against WP:ORG

The first one does not of itself seem to me to be a particular problem for businesspeople. Many self-promotional biographies have been created for other types of biography, and we seem to have little problem applying GNG principles to weed out those which are just link-farms to self-published material or regurgitated press releases.

Your second point prompted me to look more closely at WP:ORG#Primary_criteria, and I agree that there is a lot of guidance in there which would be relevant in these cases. However, nearly all of that section is in fact general guidance abut how to apply WP:GNG, and very very little of it is specific to organisations.

So it seems to me that the best solution would be a more radical one: to take the WP:ORG#Primary_criteria, and apply them to all topics. I don't know whether that will be best done by placing them in the same section as WP:GNG, or by creating a new standalone page of guidance ... but it seems to me to be much better than having some universally-valid points hidden away as if they were a special case. It also seems to me to be much better than creating yet another type of specialised guideline, because the more specialised cases we create the less that any editor is likely to know about how to assess the notability of any given topic. GNG is a remarkably effective tool, well founded in the core policy of WP:NOR, and I think that proposals for specialist notability guideline usually arise either of a desire to create end-runs around GNG, or (as in this case) because GNG is not well-enough explained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible idea. Anything that makes the job easier would be an improvement. I was going to add to it by suggesting some sort of "Examples" subpage but I think that would attract far more editing than each of the articles whose notability is in question. ClaretAsh 05:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Medina

Gabriel Medina is a Director of Photography and Camera Operator from Vancouver, BC. He has been immersed in the film industry his entire life, beginning his career in Mexico at the tender age of 8 as an actor, where he performed in numerous commercials, films and Mexican television. At the age of 22 he moved to Canada and turned his focus to the technical side of film. After studying Independent Filmmaking at Langara College, he proceeded to camera operate and DOP for a variety of award winning short and feature length films, such as "Locked in a Garage Band" (Feature, DOP), "Throw Away People" (Feature, DOP), “Neutral Territory” (Feature, B-CAM, 2nd UNIT), "Everything and Everyone" (Feature, A-CAM), "Afternoon at Gudrun" (Short Film, DOP), “Wait For Rain” (Short Film, CAM OP), “The Hostage” (Short Film, CAM OP), and many others. He has also worked in the camera department on a large number of music videos, commercials, and feature films.

He is an Associate Member of the Canadian Society of Cinematographers, and also runs his own production company, Red Eye Motion Pictures. He is enthusiastic, resourceful and passionate about filmmaking, and has the eye and craft needed to bring ideas to life using light and motion.

Gabriel Medina is a member of I.A.T.S.E. Local 669 as Camera Operator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.168.136 (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is too little coverage of this person in the press to create a good article. Also it is rarely in the interests of a subject to have an article about them because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It might make sense to work on their IMDB posting instead. TFD (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying "local" for WP:Politician

This guideline divides officeholders into two categories: "Local" or "Statewide/Provincial". In the US especially, "local" is poorly defined. Some "localities" are larger than many "states". New York City, for example, has something like 15 times the population of Wyoming.

It seems like we distinguish between large metropolises (whose leaders are always public figures) and small towns with 'truly local' representatives that are unlikely to be public figures. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally local from what I understand it to mean is, do they appear in newspapers for cities other than the one they serve. If they only appear in their local newspaper then no matter the size of the city they aren't likely notable. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For small cities, that's how I see it too. A tiny town, few professional journalists, not enough sources to work with.

The 'bug' comes when we use "local" to mean 8 million people. If your city is larger than most nations, 'local' isn't really 'local'.

For example, Israel has a population smaller than New York City. We would never insist that someone be covered 'in media outside of Israel' in order to be notable. (And this holds true for any other ~8million nation, not just Israel). --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)