Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

---

Models

This is a request for clarification from those who deal with notability.

I'm coming across individuals labeled as "models" simply because they posed for some photos which were later posted online (sometimes, but not always, in print). If this meets notability standards than any high school senior who has their photo taken by a professional photographer could be labeled a "model". What I'm finding is that this category is often a way for aspiring actors or entertainers who have no significant career experience to be seen as professional and notable.

This proliferation of amateur models seems to have taken off with the growth of the internet and social media in particular. Other examples: I've seen women who have lots of tattoos be listed as models because they had their photo in a tattoo/body modification website/magazine or exotic dancers/strippers be listed as "glamour models" because they've had a photo session or two.

It would be helpful to know what constitutes notability in this occupational category. Personally, I think it's fine to list "model" in someone's profile page if they have done professional (paid) modeling, but there should be higher standards if being a model is the primary criteria for notability. Models that would qualify would either be models for significantly well-known artists, runway models & print models with established careers (longer than a year, minimum). I don't think individuals who model for online sites should be considered because most of these are unpaid, with publicity and exposure intended to be a form of payment.

A specific question I've come across was Playboy Playmates: is this important enough to be considered notable and warrant an article on Wikipedia? Because that is potentially hundreds of individuals, most of whom never went on to any additional work that would be considered notable (I realize exceptions exist, I'm talking about the majority of those featured).

Your feedback and guidance would be welcome! Newjerseyliz (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question. We have similar problems with all forms of "easy" publication on the web - musicians, for example.

WP:RS and coverage are important. If "Sally Sue" only results in 15 hits on your search engine, clearly, she is WP:NN. Not sure what the low threshhold is, though.

Playboy centerfold could be a list, merely, and not individual articles. Not as notable as some mayors of small cities. (Mayors are not intrinsically notable). This seems a bit much. Oh, well!

The good news is: the photos themselves are copyrighted!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not quite clear to me what your question is. Are you asking if people who have modeled are notable? i.e. should they have articles on Wikipedia? If so, the criteria of WP:NMODEL should be consulted. Or are you asking if people who are notable for some other reason, but who have also worked as models, should be categorized in Category:Models (profession)? If so, I'd suggest reviewing WP:CAT, particularly the section on defining characteristics. Pburka (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Student7 and Pburka. Just returning to seeing what the response to my questions. I probably shouldn't have commented on Playboy Playmates as I wouldn't be surprised if there are a half dozen editors who are devoted to chronicling every single Playmate that has appeared in the pages of Playboy. I'm not going to convince them to turn articles into lists.

I'm not sure what entries I was working on on July 30th when I posted this but I'm sure it was some individuals who's occupation in their Infobox says "Actor, model" only they haven't any notable acting experience and the modeling they've done is, like I said, modeling they paid for (like for head shots) or modeling done for free for websites in exchange for the exposure. The context for this is that I've run across hundreds of bios on Twitter that say women are "Models" when it just means they allowed some photographs to be taken of them, they aren't professional models who do it as a living.

Not to go off on a tangent but this is really larger question: What do we include under "Occupation"? If, for example, one is a marketing exec who gives presentations for his company at a few conferences and writes a blog, can he be credited as "Marketing Exec, Speaker and Author"? It's similar in that while it might be an activity that is significant to the individual, it's not how they make their livelihood. Another example is "Activist"...seriously, anyone who speaks out about a social issue could be called an "Activist". Thoughts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems, then, that this isn't a question about notability: it's a question about infoboxes. I don't think that this forum is the right place for that discussion. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes is probably more appropriate. Pburka (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Appellate judges?

Is the average judge on an intermediate state-level appellate court considered notable? All of Wisconsin's Court of Appeals judges have articles; however, an article on a former Illinois appellate judge was recently nominated for deletion. The "politicians" section of this page seems to cover judges; however, it is not particularly helpful in this case, as judges are not members of a "legislature." —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Theodore raises a good question. Most of a state’s binding case law is announced by its intermediate appellate courts which hear appeals from trial or "lower" courts mandatorily, unlike a states' Supreme Courts, which generally hear appeals at their discretion. As Theodore pointed out, the intermediate appellate court is a court of errors that sits between a state’s trial courts and its Supreme Court. In most states, except to my knowledge in Nevada, the intermediate appellate court is the only court which must hear the appeal of a litigant, who is dissatisfied with a trial court’s decision. The intermediate appellate courts usually publish written opinions which are hard bound in reporters and archived for the legal community in law libraries and today on line on LEXUS. These published opinions are binding authority and must be followed by all trial or lower courts in the state. A state Supreme Court alternatively hears a petitioner’s appeal of one of these intermediate appellate court's decisions at the Supreme Court's discretion by a grant of a writ of Certiorari. It does not have to hear such an appeal and, usually, does not unless an issue of extreme legal importance is involved, and, even then, if the Supreme Court agrees with the intermediate appellate court’s decision, it may not hear the case anyway and may simply let the appellate court's decision stand as state case law in the interest of the Supreme Court’s judicial economy. No appellant has a right to a hearing before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, as earlier noted, most of a state’s binding case law is announced by its intermediate appellate courts and not its Supreme Court. As can be seen, then, these bodies are extremely important bodies in our society. Trial courts and their opinions differ in their social impact as they are res judicata as to a case but are not generally precedential, except, in some states, where district or superior courts are permitted to hear appeals from muni or justice court decisions and, even, then, the appeal's decision is only binding on those muni/justice courts in the district. Albiet (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Albiet
• Comment -- This discussion seems primarily to be limited to US state courts, and should not be applied more widely. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment IMO this is already covered by "statewide/provincewide" adjective. That is, appellate judges are state/provincial officers. Judges may be ostensibly "moved" from one appellate court to another (seldom done). Moreover, their salaries are established and paid by the state/province. The lines of the appellate district are controlled by the state/province. Student7 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The intent behind, and consensus interpretation of, the term "statewide/provincewide" is judges on the province or state's highest court, who do in fact preside over the entire state judicial system. It does not and was never meant to cover intermediate appellate judges who preside over geographically limited districts within the state. That their salaries are paid by the state could not be more irrelevant, nor could the fact that state law determines their jurisdiction. One might as well claim that the lowest magistrate or family court judge is also a "statewide" official for those reasons. Note also this thread was a duplicate, also raised at the Village pump recently. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposing rule amendment to Politicians

On basis of arguments contained in this talk pages section "Appellate judges?" immediately above and incorporated hereat, guidelines should be modified so state appellate court judges are considered notable per se. Albiet (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Hello. I wanted to ask for your help in editing the article that has been declined. Can edits to this article change its status? Thank you for your help.--Alakri 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — Alakri 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakri (talkAlakri 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC) • contribs)

Royalty

In the section on "Family" it says:

Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. See also Invalid criteria.

It seems like Wikipedia has thousands of articles on minor figures of European royalty who are clearly nonnotable because their only significance is their title, not their accomplishments. I can only guess that there is a strong Royalty lobby or WikiProject on WP because a lot of the better articles reach GA and FA status. But the third wife of some duke of somewhereShire who was cousin to the King of France in the 17th century? I don't get it but I'm afraid if I go to work with AfDs on nonnotable royalty, I'll run into a lot of resistance. Any advice from those who are also not fascinated by monarchistic dynasties and the people who live on the periphery? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not measured in accomplishments. It's measured in multiple, independent coverage in reliable sources. If there are articles about royalty that are not backed by reliable sources, and if after honest effort you can't find any, nominating an article for deletion is thoroughly appropriate.

However, if some truly lesser noble, with no accomplishments whatsover, has been covered in a whole mess of reliable non-fiction books, news articles, magazines, television documentaries, radio broadcasts and/or academic treatises, I'm afraid you're stuck. David in DC (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

PORNBIO again

I have tagged this as disputed as its clear from the latest imbroglio on AN that this section is not in receipt of wide community support and that in the case of a porn actor the community isn't going to accept awards in lieu of actual sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

While I don't happen to personally at all agree with the above "summary" of recent events at AN (or elsewhere), which are here for your own perusal and/or comment, I do welcome a discussion about the PORNBIO standard and how it should be changed. Guy1890 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The current PORNBIO guideline is just fine. If any changes were to be made to it, I think it should be less strict and more inclusive of pornographic actors. I find it difficult to understand how some of the porn industry's biggest stars, such as Sara Jay and Rachel Starr, don't have an article simply because they don't meet the PORNBIO guideline on WP. I do understand why WP has these guidelines, but notability is something too abstract to measure on a scale. I'm also wary about WP users with an anti-pornography agenda who have made their conflict of interest very obvious by:

1. Always participating in porn-related AfD's only to vote "Delete", regardless of whether the subject passes PORNBIO or not

2. Compulsively PRODing multiple porn articles and if they are deprodded and improved, starting an AfD anyways

3. Campaigning on WP to degrade the value of "well-known and significant industry awards"

4. Disregarding reliable adult industry news sources such as AVN and XBIZ, referring to them as "press releases" and "gossip"

5. Removing properly sourced, factual, and encyclopedic information from porn articles because they simply don't like it.

We can't be naive and allow these users to brainwash us. Recent examples of this are the deletions of Deauxma and Elexis Monroe, two porn actresses who clearly pass PORNBIO but whose articles were deleted simply because they had more "delete" votes than "keep" votes, without regard towards the actual arguments made. If we allow this kind of behavior to continue, we will someday end up having AfD's for Jenna Jameson and Sasha Grey and possibly deleting them. Leave the PORNBIO guideline alone. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What a pathetic excuse for an argument. Fact is, these articles get deteleted in spite of PORNBIO because they are BLPs that don't meet the GNG. That's the only reason that people vote delete. If more people feel that the GNG should be the standard for BLPs then you need to work towards making PORNBIO fit that rather then railing against the majority. If you can't accept the way that the community has decided to deal with the content then you need to leave or FORK, rather then wasting your time and ours by arguing against the inevitable. Its time to wake up and smell the coffee, you brought the issue to a head and the outcome supported the view of DRV nor your one. Now we have that clear external consensus you need to either accept it or take your campaign off wiki. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop intimidating editors, Spartaz. You can't bully people into accepting the mob rule. The editor above is entirely entitled to her view, regardless of it being a majority and minority one, and to argue politely in defense of it. WP should encourage diversity of opinions on its own governance and policies. --cyclopia^speak! 09:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not entitled to label and cast aspertioms and can expect to be called out if they continue to ignore the wider community view. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• There's obviously a pretty active group of anti-pornography editors (and even some Wikipedia administrators unfortuntely) out there. While I am sympathetic to pushing back against them where feasable, I have thought for a long while now that the current PORNBIO standards could be improved, regardless of whether or not changing those standards would change any of the minds of those anti-porn editors. With that in mind, I would propose something along the lines of the following changes to PORNBIO:

• The first section of PORNBIO should be changed to read:

"Has won at least one major, well-known and significant industry award or has been nominated for such an award more than three times; Has won at least two industry awards in scene-related categories. Nominations in scene-related categories or nominations and awards in other ensemble or minor categories are excluded from consideration. For awards with multiple rounds of nominations, such as the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award, only final round nominations in major categories should be considered."

If we're going to continue to have a sub-section of the ENTERTAINER guidelines for "Pornographic actors and models" alone, then, IMO, that standard should be tailored to meet the adult industry, where many adult performers are paid on a per scene basis, if they are not under a long-term contract. PORNBIO has apparently been a similar but technically more strict guideline than ANYBIO for a while now, and, while I don't personally agree that it should be very much more strict than ANYBIO, I realize that (like it or not) there are at least some on Wikipedia that feel like we have "too many" pornography-related articles on Wikipedia.

• It's unclear to me whether or not the "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" wording that's currently in PORNBIO adds anything of value to it, given that it appears to be very similarly-worded to the current GNG standard. I'd like to hear some more commentary on whether or not that last portion of the current PORNBIO standard should be change or removed, especially in light of the commentary located here. PORNBIO is, of course, a sub-section of the ENTERTAINER standard. Guy1890 (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's unclear if changing that helps or hurts. The problem for many of these actors is that they have so many search hits, it is difficult to find ones that those who oppose these articles on principal accept as good sources. So they may well meet WP:GNG, but identifying those sources is difficult. One other option that has been discussed is to simply fold this into WP:ENT or some other guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think that we want to go down the path of trying to figure out which adult film actors/actresses have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", like is currently in the ENTERTAINER guideline right now. If one can actually prove that an adult performer meets GNG, then that performer should very likely have an article on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, you have it squarely, because of underlying factchecking/independance/credibility issues both AVN and XBIZ are not widely accepted as RS. If we have a separate PORNBIO standard then we need to work with this and not just refuse to accept it. My view is that we remove reference to nominations and modify the widespread impact as requiring reference from reliable sources to confirm. On that basis we will have something that fits more closely to the GNG and would be more likely to carry weight in discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• "because of underlying factchecking/independance/credibility issues both AVN and XBIZ are not widely accepted as RS." An argument can certainly be made over how & what portions of info that AVN & XBIZ choose to report on, but the idea that I've seen recently (that because there may be issues there that they can't even be trusted to report on their own awards ceremonies) pushed really doesn't hold any water with me. Who better to know who won or was nominated for an award but the organizations that are basically running those same award ceremonies? It's also not true that these kind of award ceremonies & their results don't ever get any mainstream media coverage.
• Since there obviously is at least some kind of problem with using nominations in the PORNBIO standard, my first choice is to raise the number of major, well-known and significant industry award nominations that can satisfy PORNBIO. If consensus ultimately dictates that we get rid of nominations in PORNBIO altogether (even though they could be considered under ANYBIO), then so be it. I also know that the definition of "several times" unfortunately comes up for discussion occasionally at AfD, so having an actual number (whether that number is 4, some number higher than 4, or even if that number is ultimately zero) for how many nominations it takes for a subject to pass PORNBIO seems necessary at this point.
• Being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" obviously requires confirmation from a reliable source. There's got to be a reason why PORNBIO #3 exists in its current form...I just don't know what that reason is or whether it's a very good reason or not. Guy1890 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall the last time I've seen such brazen disrespect for the community's decisions. Despite a long strong of AFDs rejecting looser standards for porn performer notability, a series of AFDs and related discussions resulting in consensus that PORNBIO needed more restrictive language, a string of DRVs that without exception supported the community's deletion of biographies of insignificant performers, and a string of discussions on multiple noticeboards rejecting their positions, pretty much the same small group of editors now resorts to name-calling, casting aspersions, and making accusations of bad faith against editors who support the established consensus, and against administrators who close discussions in accordance with both immediate and more global consensus and who enforce BLP policy. The next step is likely to be sanctions against such deliberate disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am fine with keeping PORNBIO as it is. PORNBIO requires the award to be both "well known and significant". The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.[1] The AFDs and DRVs have made clear that the MILF of the Year nominations are not significant enough not that PORNBIO is flawed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Every single claim on WP I have seen so far against the notability of MILF performer awards has been made by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who is campaigning to degrade the value of several other adult industry awards as well. The MILF performer awards are quite significant indeed. To my knowledge, the first awards show to introduce this category was the XRCO in 2007. AVN followed suit two years later. Now, pretty much every awards show, both big and well-known or small and insignificant, has this category: XBIZ, FAME, Urban X, NightMoves, SHAFTA, Adam Film World, CAVR, XFANZ, Fame Registry, BBW FanFest, The Fannys etc. Considering the fact that they are basically an industry standard and universally accepted by pretty much every awards show, they are definitely enough for recipients to meet PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • You need to relook at Deauxma's AfD and realise it's not just HW making that argument. [2] Consider me another person who believes they are insignificant. It's not the award giver that determines their significance. It's us as in wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
      • You think MILF awards are insignificant? So, if a porn actress actually won one of these awards, not a nomination but an actual win, she would not be notable? If winning an award makes you notable, than so does multiple nominations for one. And I really think it's odd how some WP editors are looking for any excuse to delete as many pornography articles as possible, but no one seems to notice their hypocrisy. For example, if she passes PORNBIO, delete because she fails GNG, but if she passes GNG, delete because she fails PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, that award is an insignificant token award for older actresses given that they're not disqualified from consideration for performer of the year or best actress or technically even new starlet awards. Further the Luscious Lopez example showed that people didn't think she satisfied the GNG despite the sources, not that it was ignored. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, older actresses ARE disqualified from being nominated or winning Female Performer of the Year and Best New Starlet. For example, India Summer was the busiest female porn performer in 2011 and wasn't even nominated for Female Performer of the Year, instead she won MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year. 2013's oldest Female Performer of the Year nominee was Dana DeArmond at the age of 33 and the oldest Best New Starlet nominee was Adrianna Luna at 28 years old. We can't just disregard an award category because it is for a certain group of people and not a "generic" Female Performer of the Year award. The AVN Female Foreign Performer of the Year award for example, was recently established by consensus in an AfD as a "well-known and significant industry award", so why should the MILF category be treated any differently than the Foreign, Unsung and Transsexual categories? And also, lets not forget we are talking about the AVN, the "Oscars of Porn", being nominated for any AVN category, with the exception of "scene-related and ensemble categories", is a very big deal and certainly makes a performer notable when winning or being nominated for one several times. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
            • You are wrong about older actresses not being eligible for those awards and you made it obvious with your example since Elexis Monroe is younger than Dana DeArmond. I am actually familiar with the nomination process and voting criterias since I actually vote in these things. I consider the Foreign and Transsexual performers categories more significant than the MILF of the year and I welcome the AfDs to ultimately determine any of these awards' significances. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not anti-pornography, I just question its value in an encyclopedia beyond the most notable people. I mean, do you know how high the bar is to be considered "notable" if you are an academic? It's not just that you have published books or taught at a university, they have to be extraordinary and gotten national coverage. I'd say 1 out of 50 (or less) professors are eligible for an article on Wikipedia. WP doesn't include a biography of everyone who has ever been a candidate for political office but for those candidates who are elected to important offices. In other words, Wikipedia isn't a directory of popular porn stars but ones who are notable, who are the top-earning stars, who would be known outside of porn in mainstream media.

This isn't about pornography itself, it's just the expectation that for this area of WP that the standards of BLP notability should be as high as they are for other areas. The number of people who are notable in a field are a small minority of those who participate in it. For good or ill, the vast majority of individuals in any area of life are not considered notable, by Wikipedia standards. If you want to lower the bar for inclusion, I think it's better to contribute to the Adult Movie Database or a relevant Wikia where fans can set their own standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would support eliminating the pornography guidelines entirely, just not ignoring them with one lame excuse or another. Getting awards seen as notable in science makes a scientist notable even if they get no coverage otherwise, because obviously accomplished scientists belong in an encyclopedia. No need to use that standard for porn stars. Dream Focus 00:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Reducing the porn guidelines to essay or similar status might well be reasonable in this case. I know people could say that I am anti-porn because I tend to edit religious material, and, honestly, I personally don't have any real use for it, although I'm not really against it, but I don't see any reasons why these articles and topics necessarily are of such broader significance that they necessarily require separate entertainment bio guidelines for themselves. Those individuals who don't meet general ent bio standards may not, and I think often probably don't, necessarily have enough real encyclopedic content to really have reasonable bio articles here anyway. Now, porn films (and audio and whatever) are a different matter, and I suppose it might, if reasonable, be possible to have articles on production companies, which might have subsections on actors they regularly employ. But particularly for minor or lesser figures in the business, who would be the ones least likely to meet regular ent bio guidelines, honestly, I don't see how much encyclopedic content there would necessarily be on them anyway. Unless it can really be demonstrated that these topics receive such obviously non-proportional coverage in any significant independent reliable sources that the regular ent bios can't be used (I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that is the case), I have reservations about such separate guidelines. I can and will check the Gale directory of publications, and see what if any I can find which I might be able to give the group which might be useful in establishing notability according to standard entertainment biography guidelines. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• "I don't see any reasons why these articles and topics necessarily are of such broader significance that they necessarily require separate entertainment bio guidelines for themselves." I don't think at all that the PORNBIO standard exists as a "low-bar" to inclusion on Wikipedia. The current "standards of BLP notability" are actually as high, if not higher, for adult film performers as for anyone else in the entertainment industry. I think PORNBIO has existed pretty much to prevent "too many" pornography-related articles from existing on Wikipedia. Is the adult industry the most important topic that Wikipedia needs to cover? Of course not. All "well-known and significant awards or honors" (including being nominated for just one of those awards several times) are included in the ANYBIO guideline. It could certainly be argued that many adult film performers have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", and at least some of those same adult perfomers have had "significant roles in multiple notable films or television shows" under the ENTERTAINER standard. Some adult performers are also directors, so the FILMMAKER standard would (and currently does) also apply to them as well. If PORNBIO has to go entirely, then so be it...just be careful for what you wish for. Guy1890 (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• If I am take the above comment as indicating that this guideline, in some way, is if anything stricter than those of other performers, then I guess I could see it reduced from a guideline on that basis alone, if it serves to inhibit the development of a truly encyclopedic site, with the possible exception (I don't know) that BLP issues regarding some individuals and porn might maybe be not unreasonably a bit more restrictive, if the individuals themselves have never openly acknowledged or discussed their earlier porn work or whatever, I dunno. Like I said, personally, I am not particularly interested in this topic one way or another. Now, having said that, if maybe the awards which are considered significant enough to meet standard 1 were itemized as much as possible, to avoid disputes regarding what qualifies. But, yeah, if the guidelines are changed to more or less be equal to those of regular entertainment bios, honestly, that would be fine by me, that might prompt discussion about those broader guidelines as well, which may or may not be a bad thing on its own, again, I dunno. John Carter (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to try to list specific awards that that would make one notable, specific awards where winning 2 or more would make one notable and specific awards (likely highly limited, if any) where nomination for multiples would be enough. This is a 2-20 billion dollar industry. Some of these awards must be above the bar. It would be nice to find consensus on the issue. There are a few people who want any nomination to count. There are some who likely won't accept any industry award here. I'm hopeful the rest of us can find a middle ground. I'd love to see a few specific proposals (ideally based upon old AfD results and maybe any sense we can get about what awards the industry considers most prestigious). A few lines in the sand. Anyone know the field well enough to give specific proposals? Hobit (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Awards that make one notable are, by definition, awards that are noted – i.e. awards that are regularly reported upon in independent mainstream media. That is simply the definition of what notability means according to Wikipedia policy. No amount of discussion here or elsewhere can change this basic fact. Any guideline that attempts to circumvent this by artificially defining some other awards as allegedly conveying notability would be ipso facto invalid, as the current guideline still is. The number of porn awards that meet this basic criterion is probably zero or close to zero; at least in all these months of debates I have never seen anyone attempting to show that any of them does qualify under it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• "There are a few people who want any nomination to count." I don't know that that's actually true at this late date...that's certainly never been my position at all. As for "specific proposals", I made one above on October 5th...you don't have agree with it if you don't want to. As for a listing of what I would call major awards that should be eligible under PORNBIO, I believe the Pornography Project tried maintaining such a listing in the past, but, for some reason unknown to me personally, it proved difficult to maintain over time.
• As a possible example for what I might call a "major award"...just using the AVN Awards as an example...that would mean something along the lines of the Crossover Star of the Year, Unsung Starlet of the Year, Unsung Male Performer of the Year, Best New Starlet, Best Male Newcomer, Female Performer of the Year, Male Performer of the Year, Female (or Male) Foreign Performer of the Year, Transsexual Performer of the Year, Performer of the Year-Gay Video, Newcomer of the Year-Gay Video, Best Actress (or Actor)—Film (or Video), Best Supporting Actress (or Actor)—Film (or Video), Best Actor—Gay Video, and Best Supporting Actor—Gay Video. That's around 22 awards.
• Again, just using the AVN Awards as an example, the most significant scene-related award categories appear to be something along the lines of Best All-Girl Sex Scene—Film (or Video), Best Couples Sex Scene—Film (or Video), Best Sex Scene in a Foreign-Shot Production, Best Transsexual Sex Scene and Best Sex Scene—Gay Video. That's around 7 awards. I don't know that setting a very specific listing of awards that meet PORNBIO would be easy to do, since award names change, at least slightly, from award ceremony to award ceremony. Guy1890 (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For some history, this was discussed in an various extensive discussions and RfCs:

• November 2011
• December 2011
• March 2012
• July 2012
• January 2013

which list doesn't include pre-2011 discussions and some short discussions and I think I missed an RfC I ran. The basic problem is that the rule says "Has won a well-known and significant industry award", and (as someone just did above) this is taken to mean Category:Pornographic film awards. But Category:Pornographic film awards has 31 entries (counting articles in subcategories and not counting articles that aren't awards or list awards given one year). Quite simply, that's way too many for a category of such limited academic or artistic interest, and there's the crux of your problem.

But various discussions to cut it down to (let's say) six or so run onto the shoals. You can't get people to agree on which six (or eight or whatever). I tried. For instance, I said look, we have the Japanese Adult Video Awards and the Japanese Pinky Ribbon Awards, can we decide on which is the most notable so we have just one qualifying award for Japan (and commensurate numbers for Europe and America and gay porn, or whatever). And you can't. The whole industry is balkanized and you can't get editors to agree on some reasonable subset of the entire Category:Pornographic film awards. I tried and tried hard, and maybe someone better than me can do it, and good luck if you want to try.

In light of all the energy spent on this and the intractability of trimming it to something reasonable (on top of the fact that it's very hard to change rules here in the best conditions), what I'd suggest as a possible solution is:

1. Keep PORNBIO just as it is.
2. Continue to ignore it, just as we do, since it's ridiculous.
3. Accept that this is just thing we do, have a written-down rule that's not actually followed, as a quirky little artifact of our imperfect governance structure, and not worry about it too much.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Further, I'd advise people wanting to keep articles about obscure porn actors, that, as the best way to advance their interests, they should stop citing a rule that nobody follows or cares about and instead directly engage the audience. Don't say "This article should be kept because WP:PORNBIO" because that doesn't work. Instead say "This article should be kept because _________", where ________ can be any argument that convinces your colleagues. Tell us why, even though he doesn't meet the general WP:BIO criteria, this person is an important person in the world at large such that readers of a general-purpose encyclopedia need to know about him and so we should carve out an exception in this case, and so on. We're not unreasonable people and we're willing to listen to cogent arguments along these lines. Herostratus (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• "But Category:Pornographic film awards has 31 entries"...I had a feeling that someone would bring this up. The thing is that many of those award ceremonies basically don't exist anymore and a number of them (the Venus Award, FOXE, FAME, SHAFTA, Adam Film World, Free Speech Coalition, and Erotic Awards) only give out a handful or less of truly major (and basically zero scene-related) awards every year. XBIZ gives out roughly the same number of major and/or significant scene-related awards as AVN does, XRCO gives out slightly less of the same kind of awards as AVN & XBIZ do, and a few ceremonies (the Urban X Award, Hot d'Or and Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival) only give out about a dozen or so of mostly major awards each year. I have little to no experience with the PorYes, the Feminist Porn Award, the Brussels International Festival of Eroticism, and the Australian awards or any of the gay/lesbian-only & Japanese award ceremonies. Also, there are apparently a lot more mainstream film awards than adult film awards, and I haven't run across anyone complaining about that. Guy1890 (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Gee, do you think that's maybe because mainstream films have a little more historical value, artistic merit, cultural impact, and scholarly interest? Herostratus (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• No. Guy1890 (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure: I am not in favor of porn.

I tried once to get rid of a porn actor article. I turned out he was too notable, and that didn't happen.

Mercifully, I was not exposed to the man's acting when I finally conceded defeat in the Afd process. It was purely done on WP:RS, awards, etc.

Having said that, that actor also directs his wife in porn films. You think Miley Cyrus is strange? These people do not live on the same planet with the rest of us!

In the best of all possible worlds (or possible encyclopedias), heterosexual women would create articles or vote on Afds for women actresses, only. Heterosexual men would evaluate the bios of men to be notable.

I suspect that articles on women get created because some guy saw the woman in a porn film. With women doing the nominating, this isn't going to happen.

Of course, in my "best" world, no woman would nominate another woman for notability. End of porn bios! Student7 (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)