Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

---

Proposed addition to clarify definition of "co-creator" in WP:CREATIVE

Resolved

Proposed addition to

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Add the following:

"Cinematographers and independent Camera operators in reality television series are not considered co-creators of the work or body of work."

This proposal is based on the overwhelming delete vote here. There is no reason to repeat an AFD with the same arguments for another cinematographer or independent camera operator, or to have an inconsistent application of the meaning of "co-create" in WP:CREATIVE. PPdd (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: False problem, WP:CREATIVE is enough clear. Looking at the AfD, at the above discussion and at past discussions, it seems you are the first and only editor to argue that a reality show-camera operator could pass the WP:CREATIVE criterium. Camera operators almost never have "a mayor role" in creating an artistic work, and Jesse Fleiss is not an exception; easy test: you will never find a reliable secondary source that refers to him as creator/author of the shows he worked in... Cavarrone (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that camera operators with discretion as to what to shoot "almost never have a major role in creating a film work"? PPdd (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see the point, but we don't want to get down to this level of detail, we don't want to encruft our rules with detailed instances more than is necessary. I think it's pretty obvious that "co-creator" means something like a co-author when there are two authors of a book, that sort of thing. I don't think very many people think that it would apply to a cameraman or set decorator or gaffer or whatever, and in the AfD cited no one did except for one lone person. If it comes up again just point to that AfD as precedent or something, or just shoot it down again. It just isn't likely to come up that often, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolving a logical inconsistency between WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTINHERITED

We now have

"3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, THAT (not "who") has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

• 1. Some editors argue "that" refers to the (a) work (co-creation), not to the (b) person (co-creator). So #3 says it is sufficient for a person to be s notable that their work got significant coverage and so is notable, i.e., notability of a work is inherited by the co-creator. In this case, the language of WP:NOTINHERITED must be modified for clarity.
• 2. Other editors argue "that" refers to the (b) person (co-creator), not to the (a) work (co-creation). The person themself has to be the subject of the multiple articles etc., i.e, the person must already be notable. In this case, the "criteria" #3 adds nothing at all, since the person already has to be notable by coverage of the person, and coverage of the work adds nothing, and is not a "criterion" at all. It should be deleted since it adds nothing.

We cannot have it both ways and be consistent. Either #3 says notability of the co-creation, by coverage in sources, makes the co-creator notable without the co-creator having coverage. Or the co-creator has to be independently notable by coverage of the person, in which case #3 adds nothing to establish notability of the person, who must be independently covered and is thus already notable. It is not a "criterion" at all, and is entirely irrelevant.

I am so far merely pointing out an inconsistency, not proposing a resolution of it. So far this is not a proposal calling for "support" or "oppose". We do not vote on matters of logical inference.

Here is one proposal to resolve the inconsistency, and to clarify things. If it is "opposed", I invite other proposals to resolve the inconsistency. But merely "opposing" the following proposed wording, without suggesting an alternative wording for resolution of the inconsistency, leaves the logical inconsistency in our policies and guidelines.

Proposal for resolution of inconsistency (and call for alternative proposals for resolution)

• A. Deleting #3 entirely, since it adds nothing because the co-creator already has to be notable by sources on the co-creator, not just on the co-creation.

Or

• B. Adding the following to clarify this -

"WP:CREATIVE applies to creation of any notable thing, not just to a work of art. A person is notable if they are a significant participant in the co-creation of anything notable by Wikipedia standards, even if the co-creator would not otherwise be notable. In other words, notability is inherited by a co-creator of a thing, by virtue of notability of the thing created. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to inheriting notablity from one's own creation."

Discussion and positions on first specific proposed resolution

Note: If my specific proposal is above "opposed", then we still must come up with an alterative proposal if we are to resolve the inconsistency. We must not merely "oppose" my suggested resolution. Please discuss "That" v "who", and the other issues raised above reagrding inconsistency, ambiguity, and/or irellevancy, and propose alternative resolutions, in the sub-section below this one. This is for discussing and taking positions on the specific proposal.

Note, the following comment was striken after some of the comments below, and was replaced with a more clear statement of the point I am making above.So if a person does not receive significant secondary source coverage, and creates something that is of little value, they are still notable if their creation is, according to WP:CREATIVE. I would have thought the language of this guideline would already be clear, but apparently many editors have difficulty understanding the difference between "sufficient" and "necessary", which is not to belittle their other skills at editing, just that this clarification would be useful to such editors. It is common, even at a university, for people not to understand the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient", or not to be able to reason from logic. This creates unneeded argumentation that only serves to point out this fact, and helping in this understanding by clarifying language is good. This proposal is based on my experience of a number of AFD's in which the value of the thing created as art is debated, or the notability of the person independently of their co-creation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Fleiss for one of many examples of this, in which the delete discussion focuses on whether or not reality television is art or not, and on whether Jesse Fleiss hismelf received significant secondary source coverage. It should have focused ONLY on whether he was a significant co-creator (e.g., arguing that a camera operator is not a significant co-creator is valid), and on whether the body of work received significant secondary source coverage. It turned out that he was not a significant co-creator of the body of work, but if he had been a significant co-creator, this article would have been deleted solely because he himself received little or no secondary source coverage, or because the film form (hack reality television) was not considered to be art. By these arguments, because he himself was not the subject of secondary source coverage, and because the body of work was disliked as an art form by many editors, the article would have been deleted because the language in WP:Creative was not clear enough for those who could not understand the distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient", or reason well from elementary logic. PPdd (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Notability is not about whether we want to write an article, or even ought to, it starts from whether we can. Verifiability requires us to have "reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question". If there are no such sources, then we cannot write an article about the subject however much we think one ought to exist. So a notability guideline that declares that as subject is notable irrespective of the existence of sources cannot stand. The "exceptions" to the GNG are about interpreting the word signficant in "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The proposal does not address these issues. Furthermore, it gives no reason why creative co-creation should be given such a privileged position. If a co-creator is not referred to in reliable sources, we cannot write an article on them; if they are described as co-creators but there is not significant material about them as such, then they can be cited as co-creators in the article on the thing so created. A mere list of some of the things that a co-creator is mentioned as having co-created is not a reliably sourced article, since that would be original research by way of synthesis, and, perhaps more importantly, not encyclopedic. An article merely listing the things that a person has been recorded as involved is not a balanced view of their oeuvre as a whole. We look to independent reliable sources for that, not our own efforts. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Added the "oppose" to make my position clearer. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Your addition doesn't "clarify" things, it "changes" things, making people who would now not be considered notable (as a Wikipedia standard) suddenly notable. The creators of a company, sporting club, ... are often not notable, certainly in the vast majority of cases where the company or club in itself is barely notable. Often, nothing more than a name is known about these people (at least from reliable secondary sources, primary sources may of course contain more info). Let's say we can find out who the creators were of MFM 92.6 (random article). Why would that make those people notable? Fram (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Fram's example of a "barely notable" company would clearly not tranfer notability to the co-creator. But the criteria as it now stands in this guideline in WP:CREATIVE bullet point #3, quoted above, is that notability IS inherited if "significant or well-known work". Note the words "significant" and "well known". That means that notability is only inherited by a co-creator if their work is significant or well known, and not if it is just "barely notable". PPdd (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree that this is a real change, and not for the better. I am not sure what the proposer's discussion about "sufficient" and "necessary" is intended to reference. I think that WP:NOTINHERITED is intended to apply to exactly these situations, where no article is needed for the creator, since the totally of her fame, if any, is in her creation, and her mention in that article is sufficient, and a separate article about her is neither necessary nor appropriate. And any such article about her would be likely to be thin on the ground for lack of significant coverage in reliable third party publications. That is why we have subsidiary guidelines like WP:BLP1E and the broader discussion at Wikipedia:1E. There are also redirects that lead from names of people to their creations. If Margaret Mitchell had not written Gone with the Wind it is unlikely that Wikipedia would have an article about her, but because of her creation, not only did the book receive significant coverage, but she did as well, and she has an article. That is not true of all creators. --Bejnar (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Bejnar. Sufficient refers to the criteria that if a person does not get significant coverage of themselves to establish notability, such as be repeatedly being mentioned in passing with a reliable fact about them (which can be used as a source to fill out an article after notability is established, but does not itself establish notabity), it is still sufficient to establish notability that their work is majorly notable. But just "barely notable" is never sufficient. WP:CREATIVE gives criteria for the work being what I am calling "majorly" notable, i.e., "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". That is, when a work is a topic so notable that someone makes a film or writes a book about it, or it is in multiple and independent sources, it is majorly, not just barely, notable, and this notability is thus inherited by the co-creator under criteria #3 in WP:Creative. PPdd (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Let's maintain "notability is not inherited." This proposal would lead to many new articles for persons lacking multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, created by friends or relatives of otherwise nonnotable persons who are claimed to be "co-creators" of something that is notable. Someone' s ancestor was a "co-creator" of Mount Rushmore, because he operated a jackhammer chiselling on it, or he hammered into shape or riveted copper plates onto the Statue of Liberty, or was an ironworker or engineer of the Empire state building, or helped plan or dig the Panama Canal. The participation might be verified by some big book listing everyone who worked on the project, with no significant coverage in any reliable and independent source. If someone was a major contributor to the creation of something notable, then there is likely to be adequate coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. If such references cannot be found, then we should be spared articles based on assertions of inherited notability as "co-creators" just because they operated a camera or a boom microphone on a TV show, or poured concrete when Hoover Dam was built. There will always be people who were basically a "pair of hands," a flunky, a gopher or a workman, some fungible hireling, whose friends, or descendants might wish to create an article for on the basis of their "co-creating" the notable thing they helped with. A "camera operator for TV shows" is a skilled worker, but so is a crane operator or welder building a major bridge. Movies have tons of credits for workers, from camera operators to gaffers, drivers, and accountants. They do not all need or deserve articles just for being in the credits. Besides the highly notable things I mentioned above, there are many barely notable things which scrape by with only a few adequate references themselves, and the main creators only get a bare mention in references, let alone their "co-creators." A bare mention documenting someone as a creator or co-creator of a barely notable work should only justify mentioning them in the main article about that work. Edison (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The arguments opposing are not making sense to me. Why have

"3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.",

if it is also necessary that the person has to be independently notable without this? The quote implies notability is inherited.

It says "that has been the subject of", not "who has been the subject of..." If the person has to be notable independently of their co-creation (i.e., notability is not inherited from the co-creation), then the entire quoted expression adds no new criteria at all, so is redundant and should be deleted. Comments? 18:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, the general notability guideline is inevitable given our requirement that it be possible to write a verifiable article at all. The special guidelines are more about interpreting the term "significant". If a subject fails the GNG completely, in the sense that there are no sources, then it will be impossible to write an article anyway, however much notability the subject may inherit. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources that cannot be used to establish notablity, can be used to fill out an article, such as government licencing records. These could not be usable to establish notability, which is done the the significance of notability of the work, but can be used to write an article once significant notability is inherited from a major work. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of inconsistency/ambiguity/irrelevancy and other proposed resolutions

If my specific proposal is opposed, then we still must come up with an alterative proposal to resolve the inconsistency, not merely oppose my suggested resolution. Please discuss "That" v "who", and other issues raised above, and propose other resolutions. PPdd (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal "That" -> "Who"

An instant resolution to the ambiguity is to replace "that" with "who", which would then be a requirement that the person be notable by standards of secondary sources on the person, and give criteria (which are redundant as already being stated elsewhere, but at least it resolves the logical inconsistency). Without this, adding criteria for notability of the co-creation adds nothing to establiching notability of the person, which is the very purpose of WP:CREATIVE bullet point #3. (note that I oppose this proposal, but merely state it as a resolution to the inconsistency resulting from the amiguity. I think a person should automaticaly be notable even without much secondary source coverage of them, if their work is highly notable, and possibly be considered notable if their work is moderately notable.) PPdd (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - as a change to the content not the presentation of this criterion, and a change not for the better, as tending to allow inherited notability override the need to verify our articles. I don't see the ambiguity - or at least, it seems clear to me that "that" in "... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" refers to the work not the creator: hence the assertion that this is achange not a clarification. Firstly, who rather than that would be required to refer to a person; secondly, works rather than people are the normal topic of "reviews". For example, we have an article on Junius, even though we don't know who he is apart from being the author of the Letters of Junius, because the latter are notable. If the only thing in the entire world that we knew about Junius was that fact, we would still find it hard to write an article about him, because there would be nothing verified. We are able to write a longer article becase Junius, as it happens, is notable, but only by virtue of being the author of this work. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I oppose it for the same reasons as you, and only propsed it to resolve the following ambiguity, inconsistency, or irrelevancy problem. The ambiguity is in saying "notability is never inherited" in one breath, then saying if a work is so major that there is a book or movie made about it, or it is multiply and independently reviewed, then this makes the co-creator notable, even if they are not independently notable, so notability is inherited. This is an inconstency with WP:NOTINHERITED. On the other hand, if we are requiring notability of the person under standards not in bullet point #3, then why have bullet point #3 at all, since it adds no criteria at all. So there is no single, consistent interpretation that does not produce either

• 1a. ambiguity a. - You and I are in agreement about "that" referring to the work, not the creator, but the Jesse Fleiss AFD shows at least some editors interpret "that" to aply to the creator, and need some help with logic, since they then essentially argued that bullet point number 3 NECESSARILY requires a book or movie or multiple independent sources on the person, not just the work.
• 1b ambiguity b - Co-creator is so vague that some might think a gaffer in a movie, or one of many camera operators in one film, might be considered a "co-creator". That is the current film industry standard and those who made it would take this position. At the extreme opposite end is that only the director of a movie is the creator, and the camera operator (e.g., Sven Nykvist, who shot Tarkovsky's Sacrifice, had a camera inside the camera since Tarkovsky did not trust him like he did Vadim Yusov, so some might say the great Nykvist was a mere camera operator and not co-creator on this one particular film, while others would argue vehmently. This ambiguity needs at least partial resolution, which is suggested in my proposed wording. (Another aoplogy is in order here. It is developing that I am making one proposal to resolve more than one ambiguity, and maybe these should be split into separate subsections and threads.)
• 2. inconsistency- A logical implication (and not all WP editors have training in basic logic, and even less readers do, if a work is so majorly notable that it has a book or movie about it, or has multiple independent reviews, then #3 makes the creator notable even if there are not multiple things about the creator, but merely many reliable, but passing, references to construct an article from. As Fram notes above, it does not do so for only a "barely notable" work. So

"NOTABILITY IS INHERITED by the works's creator from their MAJORLY NOTABLE WORKS (as defined in bullet point #3), but NOTABILITY IS NOT INHERITED from BARELY NOTABLE WORKS".

In fact, I would propose at a minium this as an addition to counter the inconsistency. Reading the AFD of Jesse Fleiss, we can see that at least some editor read WP:NOTINHERITED to mean that a very major and very well known work does not confer notability on the creator, i.e., that criteria #3 in WP:CREATIVE is being ignored, and so needs clarification in light of WP:NOTINHERITED.

• 3. irrelevant - If an editor makes the interpretation (as many did in the Jesse Fleiss AFD or associated user talk pages, that the person MUST have multiple sourcing, in addition to their work meeting criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE, then why have #3 at all? PPdd (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Another propopsal re Inheriting notability from one's majorly notable creations

WP:CREATIVE bullet point #3 clearly says that a person is notable if their work is significantly notable, and defines standards for this. In spite of this, there is repeated AFD citation or WP:NOTINHERITED by editors arguing that "notability is never inheritied". While I believe there is already consistency in a strict reading of these guidelines, the fact is, most editors do not do such a carful reading, casually cite WP:NOTINHERITED, vote to delete an article, and never come back. Articles on creators of significantly notable works, who are not otherwise notable, especially stub articles on the creators of the singnificantly notable work, are thus deleted in the AFD just because there is not clarification. I prose the following to fix this -

"Notability is inherited by the works's creator from substantially notbale works by a creator, but is not inherited from works that are not substantially notable. "Substantially notable" can be established by having a book or movie about the work, or multiple independent reviews of it. In such cases, it is not necessary for the person to have any substantial coverage as a topic themelves.

The point is to avoid the countless AFD discussions with editors all over the map on interpreting WP:NOTINHERITED as making bullet point #3 in WP:CREATIVE have not substance. PPdd (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe the best proposal is to delete WP:CREATIVE bullet point #3. Would that not resolve the issue? --Bejnar (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That would resove the issue in that it would remove the apparent inconsistency and result in a more strict WP:NOTINHERITED standard, but that is not the only possible resolution, and it would completely change the guideline in application to creators of a significantly notable work. Removing the bullet point would mean that a person who creates a significantly (not barely) notable creation would no longer inherit notability from that significantly notable creation. The currently inherit notability in a proper and logical reading of our policies and guidelines. The main problem is that most editors do not do a proper reading, superficially read "notinherited", and delete that which the bullet point three says to keep. PPdd (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Peers and Fringe

For a fringe/pseudoscience topic such as, for example, Energy medicine, When the section Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals talks about peers does this refer to the medical community or the other pseudoscience practitioners? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone who claims to be a scientist, although they might be considered fringe, is notable if they are widely cited or considered important in the community of all scientists. Of course, that might include being widely cited for the purposes of refutation. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

PORNBIO: yes or no? (maybe)

I have closed Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2012#Improving_PORNBIO as "no consensus", because that's what there is. However, I didn't see anybody convincingly argue that it was fine the way it was. Nobody's happy with it as it is. So, it seems to me that a compromise solution could be reached. I think those who support removing WP:PORNBIO altogether and just using WP:NACTOR for pornographic actors would compromise if enough support coalesced around one particular improvement to PORNBIO. Likewise, those who support keeping a separate guideline for pornographic actors would compromise on a single version if the alternative were to delete PORNBIO completely. So, I think the way forward is for people to focus on their second choice. That is, in future discussions on this, say what you would most like to happen, but also say what you would be willing to accept instead. Otherwise, it's just another ride 'round the carousel.--Aervanath (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well the problems of using WP:NACTOR have been discussed before. I think there is resistance to that from both those who favor a specific PORNBIO guideline and those who would prefer it be removed. While I recognize that "No Consensus" usually results in the continuation of the status quo, I would question whether text that has no consensus for inclusion and is routinely ignored in deletion discussions can be fairly marked as a guideline. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• PORNBIO, PORNBIO #1 in particular, is under focaas today at WP:DRV.

  I suggest that

"Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award. (See Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards for other awards that may apply.)"

be changed to

"Has been independantly reported for winning won a well-known award such as an AVN Award. (See Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards for other awards that may apply.)"

Some of the AVN awards are routine promotion. The awarding body is presumably hoping that by conferring these awards, further coverage/publicity will be stimulated. For some of the awards, this appears to not succeed. If no independent source reports the awarding of the award, then the award has not generated independent coverage as we require, and it is not indicative of wikipedia-notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think that is an excellent solution as the conferring of an award is supposed to be shorthand for their being coverage out there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this would help much. A lot of these awards do have an independent source, eg. [1], so the proposal won't go far enough at tightening pornbio. If you want to cut down the awards, restricting pornbio 1 to Best Actor/Actress or Performer of the Year awards would be better. Epbr123 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is xbiz a reliable source? The reference is just a listing so we couldn't possibly use that as a source for notability. Generally we expect detailed coverage to counbt for one of the two sources. I was kinda expecting us to use more mainstream sources for this determination which would allow this SNG to fit more closely to GNG and BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Any Additional Criteria that required the passing of the Basic Criteria would be rather cyclical and redundant. If there's consensus that porn stars should only have articles if they pass GNG, then so be it, but WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO will have to be amended to specifically exclude porn stars. Epbr123 (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Assuming that xbiz is acceptable as an independent source (I would err towards accepting), the content of that link needs to be divided into the prose preamble and the reproduction of the full list of awardees. The full list of awardees must be dismissed with respect to notability, because the list, or any copy of the list, is primary source material. It doesn't say anything. Mere copying does not transform primary soruces to secondary sources. There is no creative content generation in copying. So, all that counts is the preamble, and indeed, for all the subjects named in the preamble, the source contributes evidence of notability. There was discussion of some subject winning some awards. The failure of the journalist to directly comment on other subjects winning other awards actually speaks to the non-notability of the other subjects and other awards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• A disadvantage of the proposal is that an AVN Award for Best Actress, for example, would confer notability in some years but not others, depending on what a journalist decides to mention in the preamble. Epbr123 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• So? Some award awards correlate well on average. That's all that is expected from an indicator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of consistency, it would be better to find those awards that are often mentioned in preambles and use them as the indicators. Even better would be to find the awards that best correlate with a person passing GNG. However, your proposal is better than the existing guideline and many of the other proposals, so I'll go along with it if it helps to finally reach a consensus on this. Epbr123 (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• The above mentioned DRV discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 12. Any interested editors are invited to add their voices to the discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• The last time this came up was just 24 March 2012. And its been brought up time and time again over the years. There is no consensus to delete it, so why keep trying? You are notable if you have won an award which is accepted as significant in your field, have made what is considered a significant achievement in your field, etc. We have the sub-guidelines to show that things can be notable by means other than just the general notability guideline of getting significant coverage in reliable sources. You need to have this separate from the rest since otherwise people will argue that pornographers and their awards don't count and AFDs will just drag on endlessly. If any want to eliminate pornographic articles altogether, go to the Village Voice or wherever, and make a proposal there. Dream Focus 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the disputed tag goes too far. Its not that the PORNBIO guideline is entirely unwanted. It's that some AVN awards are poor indicators of the existance of suitably sourced material to build a biography. A single award out of the blue for "Unsung Starlet of the Year" for example, seems a less confident indicator than a string of nonimations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no inherent policy problem with having a wp:notable topic without sufficient wp:v sources to write an article.  Failure of WP:V is listed as a reason to delete an article in WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating, I've tried, but I am unable to get your point. Perhaps, could you phrase it another way? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I support the suggestion to tighten the criteria for inclusion. I think that this issues could be clarified as follows. awards are useful indicators for notability only in as much as they select works of enduring importance. — if the award fails to seperate good actor/movies from and bad ones then the award is a false artifact and insignificant for establishing notability. BO; talk 18:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a summary of some of the proposals made so far in these discussions:

1. Delete PORNBIO and let the notability of porn stars be judged by the more inclusive WP:ENT and the vague WP:ANYBIO.
2. Delete PORNBIO and amend WP:ENT so that porn stars are excluded
3. Delete PORNBIO and fix the inclusiveness of WP:ENT in general
4. Require that porn star articles meet GNG by deleting PORNBIO and excluding them from WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO
5. Replace the current PORNBIO criteria with a requirement that the subject's real name and date of birth can be sourced
6. Reduce the inclusiveness of PORNBIO's awards criteria by limiting the awards to the more notable AVN Awards, and maybe a few others that represent various genres and nations
7. Limit the awards to those for individuals, rather than for scene awards
8. Limit the awards to those for Best Actress/Actor
9. Limit the award wins to those that have been independently reported
10. Leave PORNBIO as it is. Epbr123 (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would not create further confusion in this mass of suggestions, but at this point I would mention even my idea, that is adding to PORNBIO#1 and ANYBIO#1 criteria something like "Group awards may not be sufficient". Citing myself: "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, even a couple of hundreds, and that are far away from indicating a (presumed) notability"... Cavarrone (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

While I'd view it as more of an interim step than a long-term resolution, I've altered the language in criteria 1 and 2 to more closely reflect the pattern of outcomes in AFD and DRV discussions, as well as the discussions here. I would personally prefer even more restrictive language (and in general would endorse Morbidthoughts's past proposal to eliminate nominations from the criteria), but believe this change will be helpful in moving the general process forward, so we can end the otherwise interminable cycle of discussions about the theoretical issue of how and whether to apply guidelines exactly as written even as community consensus evolves. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You should change the language after such a consensus is met. Right now, it's still under discussion (meaning there is no "resolved" or "please do not modify it" notice here). That said, I reverted it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

NO. This is a wiki. Pages should be edited directly See WP:BRD. If you disagree directly, then it needs to be discussed. There is already a significant amount of comment above. There is so much, that it is not obvious as to what exactly any single peron means in the context of the others. Direct edits focus the discussion. If you disagree with Hullaballoo's edit, your should preferably, if possible, improve on his edit, or if you disagree entirely with his direction, say right here and now what iti is about the edit that you disagree with. There is ample evidence that many people consider PORNBIO to be out of date. It therefore needs updating. Often, it is surprising what little change is required to reach a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear - PORNBIO #1, and probably #2 is currently an invalid argument at AFD. If it gets made, it will likley be ignored by admins who are aware it's depreciated. If you want a specific guideline for pornstars, you need to bow to the consensus that being awarded one of the self-serving "awards," is not enough to write a bio. Failure to do this just means that everytime someone says "PORNBIO" in afd, people are going to say "disregard that vote, pornbio is depreciated, the only reason the link works is because of partisans." Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

PORNBIO is only as depreciated as AfD participants decide it is. Closing admins have only ignored PORNBIO once in the past six months, and that was in a borderline AfD. Would you be satisfied with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's proposed change? Epbr123 (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I am really getting frustrated with people just ignoring my points. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but when I say something that argues in a certain direction, it seems like other users take a WP:IDONTCARE approach and then just repeat what they've already been saying. Let me clarify:

@SmokeyJoe: Yes, this is a wiki, and yes, anyone can edit it. But one person, much less a non-admin, cannot just take it upon himself to change a guideline the same way s/he would change a regular article (and it's still a guideline, whether you want it to be or not; just look at the template at the top of the page...and actually, I just noticed that Hipocrite tried to do that as well).

@Hipocrite: The points you mentioned in PORNBIO are not invalid, and for the umpteenth time, PORNBIO is not depreciated. Why? Because as I just mentioned above, this discussion is still open, thus meaning that no consensus has been met yet. Where on WP:CONSENSUS does it state that consensus has been met before the discussion is closed?

@Epbr123: No complaint; you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors aren't "ignoring" your points. They're clearly and expressly rejecting them as invalid, often providing detailed policy-, practice-, and guideline-based explanations of why you're wrong. This interminable string of don't-change-anything-without-consensus-and-you-can't-have-consensus-whenever-I-disagree posts is tiresome, tendentious, and increasingly likely to be treated as WP:POINTY disruption by the community. You should have paid attention to the rather overwhelming sentiment against your arguments at the Brgitte B DRV, particularly DGG's. Insisting that people are "ignoring" your reports, when they make detailed responses that you happen to disagree with, is certainly discourteous and a departure from the facts. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

HW, judging by your entire talk page, you're the last person who should be talking about someone being pointy and disruptive. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Erpert, what are your thoughts on what should happen to PORNBIO? Isn't HW proposed rewording a fair compromise between those who want pornbio deleted and those who want to keep it but can't decide how to tighten the awards criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe HW's proposed change would more accurately reflect what already happens at AfD, and I support that as a step in the right direction. In the larger picture, my preference would be to develop a guideline that has more direct and objective guidance. Without meaning to equate the two groups of people in any way, the practical matter of determining notability and sourcing is analogous with, say, contestants of Miss Universe and Miss World--figure a few hundred contestants each year. While many contestants get easy-to-find mainstream coverage, many don't, or not coverage that's easy to find. We're happy in those cases, with the barest sourcing, to have a stub that describes someone as Miss Mali 1957. Secondary sourcing is often hard to find, in some cases with such contestants people have relied on captions placed by a single photographer, just to provide some hint of a secondary source. Harmless in the cases I've seen, but really, it seems far more sensible, and reliable, to simply allow Miss Mali 1957 to be sourced from official pageant data and call it a day. And that provides a certain consistent level of coverage, which is nice. Prominent porn awards seem analogous, although affecting perhaps a much smaller number of biographies. I'd guess that a handful of AVN (and similar) awards probably should rise to this level--probably more than the two awards suggested at (8), but not a ton more, and limited to individual awards, leaving me to think that an SNG based on some combo of (6) and (7), perhaps allowing (9) as an alternative, would be sensible. --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Erpert Any one person may update any page. You should forget the admin thing. Admins have no special role in these matters. HW's update was quite good, and is consistent with everything written here. Your objections are not substantive. Please don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Doing so amounts to filibustering. I have reverted your revert. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • My objections are not substantive? Why? Because you don't agree? How is "you should change the wording after a consensus is met" not a valid reason? Just because you don't agree doesn't make it invalid, you know. And as I said before, since there is no "resolved" or "please do not modify it" notice here, the discussion is still open. But of course, since it's me, you probably don't care. (You didn't seem to mind when Cavarrone did it, now, did you?) BTW, changing a guideline by using an essay to back it up isn't the best idea. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Erpert, no, I find few of your comments substantive. I find you to post comments tending to empty rhetoric. You are disagreeing, but you are not speaking to the detail of what you agree or disagree with. You have been doing this here, at the recent DRV, and the preceding AfD. You are probably getting frustrated that most people are tending to ignore you? I don’t not-care about you, dislike you, or even much disagree with you except to say that you are not saying very much of substance.

      Do you think that PORNBIO is perfect as-is? Do you think that an AVN award for best unsung starlet is a suitable basis for an article? Do you not respect, or not understand the statement: “direct coverage in independent secondary sources”. Are there some awards that indicate notability more confidently than others? I say the unsung starlet award on its own does not. Others say none of the awards do and the whole PORNBIO guideline should go? What exactly do you want to happen? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm going to have to chime in and say I don't agree with HW's definition of the term significant to include "the nature of the awarding organization" because I know how he interprets that. He likes to argue in the AfDs about whether an award is valid or legitimate when the proper criteria is notability. The awarding process could be corrupt as far as I care but as long as independent sources care to report on it, it's a sign of ntoability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That, is a pretty productive post. An even more productive post would be a suggested wording that you think is clearer to interpret. Even more productive again would be an edit to the guideline showing what a better descriptive, more easily interpreted guideline would look like. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I personally think the guideline is fine as is, but since most people don't think so, I'll respect the consensus for that. But what there isn't a consensus for is how the guideline should be reworded, and because this is a guideline, a consensus should be made here for the new rewording before the rewording is actually done. Why, exactly, is there objection to that idea? (Side note: not once did I bring up AfD or DRV in this entire discussion, so I'm not exactly sure why other users are.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Erpert, you risk making it easier to simply strike the entire PORNBIO section. It is not hard to make the case that it doesn't, and never did, have consensus support from the wider Wikipedian community, and if attemtps to update it are blocked "solely due to no consensus", then we start to hear a lot of "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Smokey, you can lecture us about productivity all you want but the fact still remains that any substantive change to the guidelines should reflect consensus. That means the burden is on the people wishing to change the guidelines to establish consensus for the changes. I have told you what I have a problem with and why. You go ahead and try to address the problem instead of empty lecturing rhetoric about productivity. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry Morbid, I guess I came through way too critical, when I didn't mean to criticise you at all. All my focus was on Erpert's twice reversion of HW's productive edit. Right now I want to reinstate HW's edit and proceed from there, but I don't want to revert again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I would have reverted you back too because implicit is that I (and WP:Guidelines) prefer the status quo however problematic over changes that do not reflect consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
          • OK, I underestimated your objection. "Has won a significant award, taking both the nature of the awarding organization and of the award category into account." I thought you could reword the underlined part, to give a better definition of "significant". I'd prefer to require specific mention, not listing, in any reliable source even of not entirely independent, of the awardee receiving the award. Or am I too pro-GNG? The alternative is to delineate significant/prestigious AVN awards from less significant/prestigious awards. Are you inclined to go in either of these directions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Another problem is something that HW has alluded to, is that I believe in eliminating all nominations as a sign of notability, basically removing the 2nd criteria of PORNBIO and the respective part of ANYBIO, as being a more objective criteria than debating about certain award categories. It may seem drastic but it would eliminate the supermajority of the the problematic porn articles. On your amended proposal, if we do try to implement a definition of "a significant award", this definition must also apply to anybio. I don't want porn singled out. Is someone who won the academy award for best makeup really more notable than some porn awardee when neither would have reliable sources covering their life or career on a general level beyond an award win? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
              • Agree. The question would seem to be: "Which of the AVN awards are 'well-known and significant'?"

                For any award based criteria, I think that any single award should be considered a contributing indicator. Probably, two contributing indicators should be a minimum? Is any award, even well-known and signifcant, in the absence of anything else, no other nominations, no distinctive contributions, no individual featuring, a defintive indicator of wikipedia-notability? I think not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

                • I don't think we're ever going to reach a consensus here about which awards are significant enough, especially with many people wanting pornbio removed altogether. HW's proposal allows us to have a period where AfD voters can decide for themselves which awards are significant, and if the outcomes are fairly consistent, we could later use that to make the criteria more objective. Epbr123 (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
                  • Letting AfD !voters decide which porn awards are significant is pretty much the cause of the whole conflict, I think. The decision of which awards are important should be made at the actual guideline, not on an AfD page. And if a consensus for that hasn't been reached (which I also notice), so be it, but that also means rewording shouldn't happen until such time when a consensus actually is met. And I'm sure there are a number of people that would just like porn removed from Wikipedia, but, well, that's too bad. Nothing is ever going to be removed from Wikipedia simply because people don't like it.

That said, would anyone object to my placing a {{stuck}} template at the top of this section? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Is there, or is there not, consensus to tighten the PORNBIO criteria for inclusion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The current criteria are depreciated, and make this guideline not a guideline. Hipocrite (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not true, no matter how many times you say it. There is consensus to change it, not flat-out delete it. And it's still a guideline, so you really need to stop. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This was a good change that reflected the discussion in the talk page and solved some of the worse problems with WP:PORNBIO. I think it should be restored. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, my only real issue with the change is that it actually makes the guideline provide less guidance. Any suggestions for how to resolve that? (Or, alternatively, do you think it's not a problem?) Cheers, --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The problems I have are roughly:

• AVN awards are commercial promotion of the industry with a hundred of awards and some hundreds of nominations every year and they shouldn't count as a significant award on it own,
• having one group award or one scene award shouldn't count.
• multiple nominations should only count for significant awards.

The current text uncritically recommends a promotional award, the new text provides better guidance.

It's also more in line with current community consensus, seen in Briggite B's AfD and DRV, that notability criteria has become more strict in later years and that WP:PORNBIO needs to be made more strict.

Also, while AVN awards are "well-known", they don't show notability on their own. This has been said many times, I think. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I moved this section up because there were two conversations going on about pretty much the same thing, which was getting a little confusing (and I also just noticed that "PORNBIO" was misspelled in the heading, lol). But to respond to your concern, Enric, yes, some people have argued that AVN Awards do not show notability on their own, but few people have agreed on that as far as I've seen. What most users do agree on is tweaking the guideline, but exactly how to tweak it is where we seem to be stuck. For example, winning a "significant" award is all well and good, but who's to say which awards are significant and which aren't? As far as awards in general, the most notable ones usually seem to be AVN, XBIZ and XRCO (and in some cases, AEBN, F.A.M.E. and Feminist Porn). Then again, even that notion is debatable, considering all the options in Category:Pornographic film awards. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Enric, you seem to have misunderstood the specifics of my question, let me try to ask my question again. I agree that AVN awards do not always evidence notability, nor is there any general sense that they do at AfD. It is my guess that the highest top-level individual awards at AVN *are* generally considered to give notability. What I am asking is that we add to HW's improvements additional examples/guidance/etc. that set a line that helps us consistently distinguish the two cases, and moreover, to note additional award sources (XBIZ?, I dunno, this isn't a subject I'm deeply familiar with) whose top-level awards might also be examples of notable awards. With regard to elaborating on HW's proposal, do you have any concrete suggestions, and/or do you feel that such elaboration would be/would not be helpful? --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, I agree with "having one group award or one scene award shouldn't count", and "multiple nominations should only count for significant awards".) --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have amended pornbio so that group awards are discounted, as there's clearly consensus for this minimal tightening at least. Epbr123 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear, however - this is not enough. This guideline, as written, does not reflect practice, and as such is depreciated, regardless of the protestations of a tiny few. Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"A tiny few"? You're the only one that seems to be arguing the other way (btw, the word is "deprecated", not "depreciated"). And Epbr, I'm not sure there is a consensus on group awards not counting; I've only seen two users even mention it. Personally, I think group awards should count, but if consensus results in opposition for that idea, I'll abide by it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining the status quo is not an option. If those wanting to keep pornbio won't compromise and agree how to improve it, pornbio will soon end up deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a "tiny few." Further, I will instruct you not to further belittle my spelling. It is incivil and rude, and should not be repeated. Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Correcting your spelling is not belittling. It's not like I called you an idiot or something. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the arbitrariness of discounting group awards when there are individual scene awards that may even be less valuable. I have a counterproposal then that HW has been advocating for a long time. Eliminate scene awards/nominations. However as a compromise and also to make consistent with ANYBIO, eliminate the multiple year nominations requirements. I will be on board with this. The proposed criteria would look like this.

1. The person has received a significant award such as an AVN award, or has been nominated for one several times. The significance of an award/nomination is based on the notability of the awarding organization and of the award category into account. Scene-related awards are disqualified from consideration.

Trust me, this will eliminate a lot of the cruft out there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That is the bare minimum that I would consider. I also suggest that to remove ambiguity, it read "such as a major AVN award," to avoid the majority of industrycruft awards they dish out, apparently, like candy. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not necessary. The majority of the "candy" they hand out are scene-related or movie-related awards (that doesn't apply to the performer's count). Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2012

Actually let me outdent this and copyedit the proposal so that it actually makes sense.

1. The person has received a significant award, or has been nominated for one several times. The significance of an award/nomination is based on the notability of the awarding organization such as AVN and the award category. Scene-related award categories are disqualified from consideration. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: discussing Morbidthought's draft

First, let me say that I'm okay with that wording. If we can get consensus for it, it provides enough guidance to help matters. Were I to modify it myself, I would be tempted to add a clause noting that the significance of an award can be evidenced in part by third-party coverage, and a statement that suggesting that individual awards are generally of higher significance. But perhaps neither of these statements are necessary, perhaps they are obvious enough. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The first clause may be unnecessary because the criteria takes into account the notability of the awarding organization. Maybe I should make it "notability of the awarding organization/awards" if it's not that obvious but I think think adding awards at the end would just make it circularly confusing? The second clause is unnecessary because I don't think there are any group awards outside of scene awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Omit needless words.  ;-) (Seriously, your text is probably fine.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand why individual scene awards or group awards should be omitted. Also, the problem with the second sentence of the possible new rewording is that we would have to come to a whole new consensus over which award organizations are considered notable and which aren't (because as I said before, Category:Pornographic film awards has a lot of entries). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Scene awards are treated to be of lower importance than general performance awards or movie awards by the industry and are often shared which is a current criticism of PORNBIO. Second, we don't have to come to any consensus now over which specific awards organization/ceremony are considered notable enough. That can be determined by the general notability guidelines and argued at the afd level. The amount of reliable third party coverage that a particular awards organization or ceremony gets determines its level of notability. It's not that difficult. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That isn't always true, actually. For instance -- and I'll use a mainstream media as an example -- Viola Davis was only in one scene in Doubt, and she got an Oscar nomination for it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

She received a nomination for her acting, not for her scene. If one acted in only one porn film but still received the AVN best new starlet award (which I guess is one of the bajillion of self-serving awards that this industry gives itself), that would apparently be notable under this proposed guideline, though it's not clear that reflects practice. Hipocrite (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Strawman, Erpert. The porn award for best actor or actress (and supporting) are tied to a specific movie and are not excluded under the proposed criteria. If someone had actually won an award for Best Actor based on a few lines so be it. That is still not a scene award. Again people are confusing the legitimacy/validity of an awards with its notability. Hipocrite, knock off the industry self-serving comments because it doesn't matter on the basis of notability and smacks of "I don't like it". AVN are part of the industry in the sense that they report on it and promote it. The ESPY Award and MTV Music Awards are just as "industry self-serving" yet no one questions their notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. Look at WP:MUSICBIO, self-serving awards do not count towards notability in music articles. WP:ACADEMIC requires "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". WP:AUTHOR doesn't even mention awards. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. At no point does MUSICBIO actually define what is a "significant" award nor does ACADEMIC define what is prestigious. You have to take these awards in its context. Who determines most prestigious academic awards? Academics. Same with music awards. Musicians and music critics determine their significance and selection. With respect to porn awards, porn critics. Dismissing them as self-serving is another form of "I don't like it". Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Errr, MUSICBIO gives a list of awards, and so does point #2 of WP:ACADEMIC#Notes_to_specific_criteria:. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

They're examples, not exclusive and don't actually state what makes them so significant or prestigious. ACADEMIC even bases examples of prestige on the notability of awarding organization. I didn't include examples in the PORNBIO because the clear consensus was that not all AVN awards (the most "prestigious" of porn awards) will satisfy notability concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(but I do support this proposal, even if it doesn't specify any award). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I second the Morbidthoughts proposal, as it makes the guideline more consistent with ANYBIO and it adresses the main part of the problems that were raised on these discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I do too, I think it would be a reasonable step, and it seems to me to have (some nits here or there aside) rough consensus as a step in the right direction, even if it does not have (nor, do I expect, will anything have) consensus as the one true way. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So most people are good with removing scene awards? If anything, I would keep those and then remove group awards -- I'm not even 100% cool with that idea, but to me it makes more sense than the former. A lot of categories seem to be based on scene awards alone, and those appear to have a better chance of having third-party coverage than group awards have. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Both scene awards, and group awards, on their own, are inconsistent with the notion of the person being notable enough for a stand-alone biography. The heart of wikipedia-notability is that others have written about the subject. If all there is is a scene award or a group award, not other awards, no other nominations, no commentary with respect to winning the award, then there is nothing about the subject individually to justify an individual biography. A scene award or a group award may be reasonable contributing evidence of wikipedia-notability, but on its own it is not sufficient.

If a BLP has a single weakly significant award, then BIO1E applies and the BLP should be merged and redirected to a list of winners of the award. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with that, but third-party coverage means that others have written about it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 14:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The awards are notable even for scenes and groups. They get coverage in the porn industry, which considers them notable awards. The scenes for pornography are what the films are known for, everything but the memorable sex scenes just nothing but filler. Its the reason why the films exist and why people watch them. Dream Focus 08:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Erpert, I don't get what you are thinking. Awards are not third party coverage.

Dream Focus, I accept that the awards are notable. They can have their own articles. They can list the awardees. But notability is not inheritable. If the scene is judged notable, it doesn't mean that everything in the scence is independently notable, although it does contribute evidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How can a sex scene between two people be notable, without the people being notable? The scene award is for their performance. They don't have any special affects or whatnot to judge. Just the sex. And winning any notable award, makes you notable. Third party coverage is not the only way to establish notability. That's why we have subject specific guidelines. See WP:NOTABILITY. Dream Focus 09:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What was is about the scence that made it notable? Was it something intrinsic to the people? If yes, they are probably notable. If no, probably not. Is there evidence that the award was for performance? If there is such evidence, it sounds like there is actually real coverage. Winning any notable award, doesn't make you notable - it is a fair indicator, but it is the independent coverage that demonstrates notability. Thirds party coverage is the essence of notability in almost all cases, and this is because under WP:NOR, if there is no coverage, there is not content beyond database information, and we are not a database. We have subject specific guidelines because indicators, and general rules, make it much easier for us to make decisions. I am familiar with WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My position: I oppose any consideration of "nominations" for awards, and I oppose taking into consideration anything sourced to publications that are themselves part of the industry's promotional machinery. That includes such "magazines" as AVN or industry websites such as xbiz. Only things reported in reliable mainstream sources, such as general-purpose newspapers, count. The arguments I've seen above from several people, about how these AVN awards are no more industry-internal than Oscars or MTV awards, just show how incredibly far off the tracks this whole debate has gone: sure, Oscars too are organized by the industry, but that's not what makes them notable; what makes them notable is that mainstream media report about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So do you oppose any niche subjects on wikipedia that's covered only by niche publications? Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If they are commercial niche subjects with a reputation of invading Wikipedia with cruft, then certainly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And how are the Oscars not part of "the industry's promotional machinery"? Also, as I said much earlier in this thread, porn isn't featured in much mainstream media because porn isn't shown in mainstream theatres. A pornographic actor being featured in mainstream media is only one of the points in WP:PORNBIO. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You evidently didn't hear me explaining the difference between the Oscars and those porn awards right in the posting above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Where in WP:GNG does it state that only mainstream sources count towards notability? Epbr123 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It follows from a common-sense understanding of the fundamental criterion "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If the proposed notability of a subject is entirely due to their activity in a commercial industry, then an industry-internal evaluation mechanism, which naturally judges purely on the basis of that industry's standards of commercial marketability, never fulfills the criterion of "independence". As I said, this is different from awards such as the Oscars, because, even though they too are run by the industry, their evaluations are validated by the massive independent attention from truly independent outside sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Send all porn elsewhere?

Personally I think the solution lies in the Wikipedia organisation moving porn out of wikipedia and into a separate wiki. That way the people who think the massive value to the internet world of a wikipedia for porn can have their desires met and also the people who want to keep porn out of wikipedia can have their desires met.Dan88888 (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dan, there do seem to be some who don't understand the difference between an encyclopedia, a tertiary source documenting others' studies of subjects, and databases such as Internet Movie Database or Internet Adult Film Database. Wikipedia should not encompass all of either of these databases. However, many individuals are notable enough for a biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Dan, there are already other wikis entirely devoted to certain subjects, and their guidelines aren't nearly as strict as Wikipedia's. I'm not sure if there is a porn-related wiki on Wikia (also founded by the Wikimedia Foundation), but I think I've heard of something called Wikiporn. Basically, if something is notable, there's a place for it here. Everyone is not going to like every subject anyway. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor. People have been trying to eliminate all sex related articles, not just porn, since the beginning. I can't find the exact tool at the moment, perhaps its somewhere on Wikipedia:Statistics mixed in with all the rest, I don't know, but there is something that shows the top 100 Wikipedia articles by page views. Sex related articles (positions and activities) are always among the top articles viewed. Anyway, if you want to discuss this, go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), since that's the place for it. Dream Focus 08:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal

I can't believe this guideline hasn't been fixed yet. Are you guys just going to drag your feet until kingdom come? I would suggest:

1. Remove the nominations criteria completely.
2. Change the awards criteria to exclude scene awards and group awards.

Otherwise, I would support deleting PORNBIO completely as it doesn't have consensus in it's current form (judging by the endless conflicts it continues to generate). Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I felt that we were close to making a change with fairly decent consensus, just 2 threads above this, in an active thread, which more or less encompasses half of your proposal. Could you live with that? Maybe reply up there? --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Dykstra

About a year ago, I wrote a wikipedia article for a model named Jessica Dykstra. The article was deleted as she was not considered notable enough. She has since been signed to Frederick's of Hollywood, and is Sports Illustrated's "Lovely Lady of the Day." Does that change anything. I've included links to her Frederick's page and an article verifying that she was named "Lovely Lady of the Day." I also included the original deletion debate and my copy of the original article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnny_Spasm/Jessica_Dykstra

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Dykstra

http://www.fredericks.com/Heart_Lace_Panty/93788,default,pd.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/extramustard/hotclicks/04/06/jessica-dykstra-top-selling-major-league-baseball-jerseys/index.html#ixzz1rJ7WbYJJ

Being Sports Illustrated's "Lovely Lady of the Day" helps but not much. I'd recommend that you update the copy in your user space and continue to be patient. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I kinda thought the Frederick's of Hollywood thing was a big deal, too. I'd love more opinions. I'd love to see the article brought back.

Since you asked for another opinion, I pretty much agree with Quest. As for Frederick's, you'd need to show more than that she was signed (no notability simply for being an employee). As for SI, the "of the day" part tends to imply something non-notable (compare to "of the year"). Perhaps you could look for secondary sources that are non-promotional and that do not have a financial etc. interest in promotion, to establish that she meets criteria at WP:ENT. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. My thinking with Frederick's is whereas Victoria's Secret is the New York Yankees of women's underwear, Frederick's might be the Red Sox. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong; I won't argue it. --J.S.

Well, it's just that Wikipedia's rules state that notability is determined by coverage in secondary sources. So if the New York Times published an article about her being a model for FoH, then that would help.
BTW, please sign your posts by using 4 tides in a row. For example: ~~~~. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's another thought. Is there a list of Frederick's of Hollywood models? Sports Illustrated's LLotD? If there is not, or if she is not on it, then she probably isn't notable enough. Look at it from the outside perspective. Suppose I'm researching models or the modelling industry. I go to the F of H and SI articles. If she is not important enough to the Frederick's of Hollywood universe or the SI universe to warrant a mention on their article (or a list linked from the article), then I do not need to look up Jessica Dykstra; on the other hand, if one of these articles does mention her (in a way that adds to the article and isn't just tacked on), then for research purposes, I need to find the article in question.

So, doing a little research, I go to the Frederick's of Hollywood page. Prominently listed in that article, "Many notable models have posed for Frederick's of Hollywood catalogs, including:", some of the names are blue-lettered, and some aren't. For consistency, unless there is a policy decision with stricter criteria about models, I see no reason why she (as well as the other models listed) shouldn't get her own article just for the F of H work. You want a secondary source? Sports Illustrated is a fairly prominent publication. Listmeister (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a problem with that approach. I (or anyone) could go to a page about subject matter relating to a person who otherwise fails notability criteria and insert that person's name into the text. By your reasoning: instant notability. And, here, SI is not a secondary source, but rather, a second primary source. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Lovely Lady of the Day"? What century is this journal published in? --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting a Rule of Thumb

I've been going through orphaned articles. Too often, I find an article about a person, but there is no article about whatever the person is supposed to be noted for. Examples: An actor who appeared in one film, but there is no article about the film; the head of a government agency that is not article-worthy; an entrepreneur who founded a company that does not have an article; an academic whose school's article does not mention the department he is in. So, I would like to propose the following rule of thumb:

If the subject of a biography is noted for something that has no article, write an article about that thing first. Then see if it's still necessary to write an article about the person.

It might be phrased better than I have done here, or more succinctly as in "Don't create orphaned articles about people!" but I think this should part of the guideline somewhere. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that having such an article automatically makes the person notable, but if there is no such article, that would be a dealbreaker. Listmeister (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Most of what you're saying makes sense, except that most new articles are going to be orphaned in the beginning anyway. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to make another rule. Common sense is perfectly sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• What if the actor gets a lot of coverage, but the film doesn't? Seriously, nothing wrong with being orphaned. Maybe one day it'll have something to link to, and if not, it doesn't really matter at all. Dream Focus 23:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Medals will be an example of this. I would consider that every Victoria cross recipient is notable, but the incident for which they were awarded the medal might not yet have an article, especially if it was an obscure military skirmish from over fifty years ago. One thing to remember here is that the pedia at present is massively skewed towards recent events and certain subjects that interest the editors we've acquired in our first eleven years. Another thing to remember is that directing volunteers is akin to herding lolcats, if someone wants to write an article about a notable sixteenth century resident of their village it is entirely possible that they don't want to write the article about the battle, book or invention for which that person is renowned. So there are plenty of articles yet to be written, and it would be overly bureaucratic to insist that they be written in a particular order. ϢereSpielChequers 11:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)