Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

PORNBIO again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stuck

 – No one has commented on this in over a month; seems like WP:DEADHORSE at this point. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 10:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

• I have no intention whatsoever of accepting AVN or XBIZ as reliable sources, since they're obviously, blatantly, unreliable.—S Marshall T/C 21:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Just for the adult industry awards that have being given out in recent years, all one has to do is look at the references & links cited on the current Wikipedia pages for the AVN Award, Venus Award, Fans of X-Rated Entertainment (FOXE), Soft and Hard Adult Film and Television Awards (SHAFTA), Adam Film World, Erotic Awards, X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO), Hot d'Or, and Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival to see that yes, in fact, those award ceremonies and/or some of their award winners/nominees have been mentioned in mainstream media. Like it or not, both AVN & XBIZ are simply trade magazines for the adult industry, and the Free Speech Coalition is just another trade group for the adult industry. As for the subject reliable sources, I believe that issue was apparently decided, at least in part, back in 2009. Guy1890 (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Standards have moved on since 2009 so that rather inconclusive discussion is probably moot. I do tend to agree however with your general point. I would personally accept the awards you mentioned as probably meeting the inclusion criteria for individual awards. I'm not sure that ensemble awards would been enough for me but that is something that could be looked at during an Afd if necessary. With regard to AVN and XBIZ we generally accept trade journals because they tend to be authoritative and have rigorous standards. Not sure we can say that for these two given their tendency to reprint press releases as fact and their peer review is generally accepted as being somewhat lacking - the argument I generally hear is that they reprint pornstars facts and figures when they are obviously exaggerated. YMMV but that's the way it has been for years. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I rarely comment on porn issues, and am personally neither "pro-porn" nor "anti-porn" as I place NPOV as an important value, and accordingly believe that porn topics should be neither highlighted nor suppressed on Wikipedia. I don't think that the best way to prove that Wikipedia isn't censored is to stretch notability standards to include large numbers of porn bios, just as I don't think that the best way to show that Wikipedia is "serious" is to campaign to delete as many porn bios as possible. I watch porn occasionally but don't consider myself an enthusiastic fan. So call me a moderate. All that being said, I looked at the list of awards mentioned by Guy1890, and I passed on a closer look at the AVN awards since I have heard of them and accept them as notable and useful in this context. Instead, I took a look at the second entry on the list, Venus Award, and discovered not a single solitary reliable source in the article. So, where is the significant coverage in "mainstream media"? Similarly, the link to the 2009 discussion about reliable sources on porn topics was, as I read it, pretty much inconclusive. I see trade publications and associated awards as a mixed bag, and I speak as a long time writer for trade publications (though not porn related). I think that a critical reader of a high quality trade publication will recognize certain things: first of all, a modicum of editorial judgment is involved in selecting which press releases to republish, and to separate the wheat from the chaff, and verify the claims. Secondly, these publications often run stories that are independent coverage by staff reporters or regular columnists that include editorial control and fact checking. That being said, there are some trade publications that are little more than press release republishers and "link farms". And some industry awards are handed out to pretty much anyone who submits an application and a "modest processing fee". We have to be aware of the existence of "pay to play" award schemes. It takes expertise and sober editorial judgment to evaluate the reliability of such sources. I lack that expertise in this topic area, and don't want to do the work to develop it. I think that high quality trade publications are useful in referencing the details in articles about notable topics, but are of relatively little use in establishing notability itself. As for the less professional and more promotional "trade publications", well, the less said, the better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Not sure we can say that for these two given their tendency to reprint press releases as fact" Can we please try & put these press release issues to bed? The fact that AVN has had issues with not properly identifying when they are re-releasing info from a press release has been a known issue ("AVN also does not indicate when an article is a press release.") in the Pornography Project for years now...it's not anything new. As far as I can tell, there is currently no restriction on using press releases for citations on Wikipedia. If there was such a restriction, then the press release citation template surely wouldn't exist. I am not in favor of generating articles based mostly or solely on press release content. Using press release information responsibly in an article depends on context. For example, there's nothing wrong with using a press release to cite information like Actor A appearing as a particular character in Movie B, Actress C being signed to a contract by Company XYZ, or Actress D being quoted as saying something about their own personal life, since pretty much all of that kind of info is very non-controversial. Would it be OK to use a press release to cite something contentious, like "Movie B was the greatest movie ever made"? IMHO, no. Many, many mainstream media sources use press release information all the time. I've edited articles on Wikipedia, which were way more important than anything currently contained in the Pornography Project, that used, in part, press releases for valid citations.

• The problem with press releases is that many news papers reprint them as news. If a newspaper does this we accept it as a reliable source. Yea, they may reword a bit, but the press release is the only research they do. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• In fact we don't do that. Sources that routinely reprint press releases are not generally accepted as reliable and a source that can be shown to be a substantially a reprinted press release will be discounted in a deletion discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Are you really saying that newspapers don't reprint press releases? Also I'll note that we do have {{cite press}} for press releases. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• "where is the significant coverage in 'mainstream media'?" The Venus Award is an European adult industry award that's a part of one of the world's largest erotic trade fairs, the Venus Berlin trade fair. Am I certainly not an expert on all of the European adult industry awards, but the Venus Award has been mentioned before in the mainstream media in Europe..."Venus Awards, since 1997 - the 'Oscars of the adult industry' and 'the world's largest erotic trade fair'" & "Venus Awards - 'a kind of Porn Oscar'"...as currently indicated in its Wikipedia article, which certainly needs some more work. As I've previously said, there are, IMO, relatively few major awards given out at the Venus Awards. For example, awards somewhere along the lines of the Best Newcomer Europe, Best Actress Europa, Best Amateur Actress Germany, Best Newcomer International, Best Actress International, and Best Actress Germany appear to be major awards to me. Guy1890 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crime victims and perpetrators WP:CRIMINAL

Where an event reflects substantially on public policy or institutions, then that should obviously make it notable. On the other hand, for crime we do not want a list of every conviction or miscarriage of justice.

However, when a miscarriage of justice can be shown to be the result of misconduct by senior levels of an enforcement or prosecution organization then it becomes very notable because it reflects on that organization.

Such claims of misconduct would obviously need to be justified, e.g. by an appeals judge. The crime would need to be reasonably serious, and reported.

I therefor propose to adding for wrongly convicted of crime

2. If a serious miscarriage of justice is the result of of misconduct by senior levels of an enforcement or prosecution organization (rather than just error or new evidence) then it becomes very notable because it reflects upon that organization. Any such claims need to be strongly backed, e.g. by the decision of an appeals Judge. Any such article must be focused on the details of the case itself. Any general discussion concerning the law enforcement agency belongs on that agency's page and must not be included in this page.

(Underline indicates additions in response to issues raised below, not emphasis, not part of the proposal.)

Tuntable (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: This would make it easy to turn Wikipedia into a WP:Coatrack forum for grievances against law enforcement. In theory, "miscarriage of justice" is a crime and we already have a sufficient guideline for that. Toddst1 (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have amended the proposed wording above in response to your concern. Tuntable (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if you had struck out the deletions so we could see what the objection was. Or have struck out the old version and replaced it with the new one. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. Tuntable (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the miscarriage of justice is sufficiently serious, it will be the topic of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:GNG is sufficient. Pburka (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Many crimes have significant, reliable coverage, particularly in the main stream press. Buy some deletenists interpret this section to mean that that does not matter, because it is a criminal event it has a much higher bar to satisfy. And to some extent they have a point, every serious crime does not justify an article. But if there are broader ramifications of the crime, the way it was prosecuted etc. then it does become notable. That needs to be said explicitly. Alternatively we could just say that GNG overrides this clause, which I doubt is what you would want. Tuntable (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • And to some extent they have a point, every serious crime does not justify an article. - They don't have a point, and if they do say so, they are wrong. If something, no matter if it is a serious crime or a unicorn, meets WP:GNG and it does not clash with other policies and there is no meaningful merge target, then it can have a stand-alone article. We don't need further guidelines to carve around some editors who don't understand how WP works. --cyclopia^speak! 13:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • • Well, I presume that WP:CRIMINAL is there for some reason, namely to elaborate on WP:GNG. It does not matter that you may be right, Wikipedia is a large community and sometimes things need to be spelt out. Tuntable (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have read WP:CRIMINAL again, and it actually says no separate entry for the criminal if there is another article. OK, let's drop it here. But I have italicized the relevant part on the main article, hope nobody objects. Tuntable (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

People who are only notable for being in the line of succession for abolished royal titles

There are many many, possibly hundreds, maybe thousands, of article on the English WP such as this - Prince Christian Ludwig of Prussia, a person who is only notable because he is fourth in line of succession to an abolished throne in a country that does not exist any more, or this Countess Marie of Hochberg, a person who is only notable because she is the sister of the pretender to the throne of Hanover, which has not existed since 1866, or this Monika, Princess of Hanover, only notable because she was married to the previous pretender to the throne of Hanover. My feeling is that none of the many such articles meet the notability guidelines for biographies, I wonder what others think.Smeat75 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Having read those articles, I fail to see what makes their subjects notable. Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN tweak

WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1 notes that "This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them." This isn't particularly applicable to non-elected positions, e.g. US federal judges. Could we tweak it to read "elected or appointed"? If the President appoints you to a federal judgeship, the Senate confirms you, and you die a day before being sworn in, you should qualify just as much as the guy who dies a day before being sworn into office as a US state legislator. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Some practical advice

I don't know where this fits in, but it's excellent advice for a Jewish writer on writing biography — both online and off. The expression "maran" means our teacher:

• Yehuda Azoulay. "But are the stories really true?". Community Magazine.

When nominations for awards is all there is

• Propose removal of ANYBIO's and PORNBIO's references to mere nominations for awards as a sufficient criterion for a standalone article [3].

  These nominated criteria only come into effect where there is no independent coverage (GNG), and no awards have actually been won, and it is more than obvious that solely having mere nominations for awards gains no respect from the community. It invites promotion of someone not recognized in independent sources, & it doesn't make for content-containing articles. It doesn't matter whether the award is significant. Notability is not inherited, and it hasn't been won anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Someone nominated for an Oscar or BAFTA Film award will very likely have critical commentary about their performance that earned them that prestigious nomination; on the other hand, other awards do not have that caliber (like Golden Globes, Emmys, etc.) A trimmed list of what awards that nominations are a sure sign of further sourcing would make more sense. This, I would suspect, eliminate the PORNBIO aspect, but would still apply to ANYBIO. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Given the nomination, it will be very easy to find commentary on the nomination. In the absence of that commentary, it's best to assume it doesn't exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comments - "These nominated criteria only come into effect where there is no independent coverage (GNG)" I would argue that as long as the subject is not nominating themselves for an award that, by definition, the source of the award nomination is an "independent source".

"it is more than obvious that solely having mere nominations for awards gains no respect from the community" As basically stated above, there are more than a few awards for which just being nominated does, in fact, gain respect from the specific community that is doing the awards in the first place.

"It doesn't matter whether the award is significant"...then why do you propose leaving those small portions of the current standards alone?

As already stated above on October 5th, I am still in favor of simply increasing the number of major awards that one should be nominated for (to a number more than three) before that subject passes the PORNBIO standard. I suspect that the above proposed change by "SmokeyJoe" is really being driven by a frustration with the PORNBIO standard, which I continue to agree needs to be updated. Guy1890 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A nomination is not a reliable source, but even that aside, it would have to be accompanied by evidence of independence of the nominator.

Respect from the community. Multiple nominations, like multiple occurrences of anything stimulates independent comment, and it is the independent comment that garners respect for the topic.

Whether the award is significant. If it is a nomination not won, significance of the award is disconnected. Just deal with one question at a time. A series of wins of borderline awards is a different, harder question.

Not frustration, but very long term observation that PORNBIO does not reflect broad consensus. Even sympathy for porn-interested contributors who correctly cite the text of PORNBIO at AfD but see no traction. I suspect that the aberrance is due to the broad community being wary of engaging, and there being undisclosed COI by proponents of a very low standard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• "A nomination is not a reliable source"...of course it isn't, but the entity that is conducting and/or overseeing the awards themselves can be an independent source for sure.

"If it is a nomination not won, significance of the award is disconnected." I really don't think so...if an award is truly a significant award (and obviously not all specific award categories are significant), then the subjects that are nominated for those awards have at least a chance of being notable IMO.

"Even sympathy for porn-interested contributors who correctly cite the text of PORNBIO at AfD but see no traction. I suspect that the aberrance is due to the broad community being wary of engaging" The problem that I've seen over the long-term is that there are some vocal Wikipedia editors (and unfortunately at least a few administrators) that are unwilling to have any tolerance for pornography-related content on Wikipedia. Even changing the PORNBIO standard, which I am still in favor of doing, is, IMHO, not going to cause all of those editors to change their tune at DRV and/or AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph 1. Can you comment on my main point, about independence of the nominator? The suspicion is that award ceremonies are choreographed promotion which should be subjected to the high WP:CORP standard, and that nominations are organized by managers, (quite normal practice outside porn, even to the Nobel committees), but the end problem being that nominated&lost (with zero commentary in the process) is a non-achievement.

Paragraph2. You are arguing inherited notability.

Paragraph 3. Let's work on a solution. I suggest changing "Has won a well-known and significant industry award" to "Has won blue-linked awards". (This is assuming no more that trivial mentions in coverage; a single award is a BLP1E issue). This will give editors some surety in writing articles. Controversial edge cases should NOT be supported by a guideline, if the guideline is to have respect (both ways). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The suspicion is that award ceremonies are choreographed promotion which should be subjected to the high WP:CORP standard, and that nominations are organized by managers" You appear to be referring to "facts" that are not at all in evidence here, yet.

"You are arguing inherited notability." No, I'm really not...either awards are important or they are not. I'm not the one that added the award component to both the ANYBIO & PORNBIO standards. There has to be a reason why it's there in the first place.

"I suggest changing 'Has won a well-known and significant industry award' to 'Has won blue-linked awards'." I'm not sure what that kind of change actually means. Does it mean that an overall awards ceremony has to have an article on Wikipedia in order to be considered? If so, that's pretty much already the standard as it's been applied recently at AfD with respect to PORNBIO. If it means that a specific award category within an overall awards ceremony needs to have its own Wikipedia article in order to be considered, then that likely means that we'll end up with an attempted proliferation of Wikipedia articles about specific award categories, which would not at all appear to be helpful. Also, if it's really true that "a single award is a BLP1E issue", then that sounds to me like you're in favor of making more broad changes to the ANYBIO & PORNBIO standards as it relates to winning awards as well.

It's been obvious to me for quite a while that there is an over-emphasis on award counts (or award nomination counts) when it comes to PORNBIO-related AfDs & DRVs, which isn't constructive IMHO. The vague wording of "several" occasionally comes up for debate at AfD in terms of what it means as an actual number (2, 3, 4, etc.). Significantly increasing the number of major award nominations that a subject would have to have under their belts in order to pass something like PORNBIO (or maybe even ANYBIO?) would seem to be an appropriate compromise at this point. However, if the community supports getting rid of award nominations entirely, then so be it. "Masem" actually has a very clear grasp of another main dilema at AfD though...what the heck is a "well-known and significant award"? The same people go 'round & 'round on those issues over & over again. Guy1890 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Has won blue-linked awards". The award is explicitly on some page, and a redirect justifiably exists. Probably, I'd want to require the specific award to have its own section.

An attempted proliferation of Wikipedia articles about specific award categories would be preferable to the current attempts at proliferation of BLP stubs on non notable porn actors.

Yes, if a person has won a single award, and has done nothing else of note, and has a total of zero commentary from reliable sources, they should not have a standalone article, and any coverage should be on the page covering that award, or a spinout page covering recipients of the award.

Your last paragraph I got well into while thinking you were quoting me. I agree. Last time I was here trying to modify PORNBIO, I got into an argument with someone insisting that "several" is satisfied by "two", which was so absurd I gave up. Since then, I see nothing has changed. Some reasonable-sounding editors are clutching onto the text of PORNBIO while most consider it worthless.

What is a "well-known and significant award"? Instead of doing OR in defining a ProjectSpace list, we could define it in terms of where the award has at least a measure of coverage in mainspace (I suggest a section). This would make the list self-managing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Your apparent definition of a "blue-linked award" doesn't seem to have much meaning to me, since it appears to be a very easy bar to exceed. There are a lot of awards out there that are mentioned "on some page" somewhere on Wikipedia. Obviously, not all awards are truly notable.

I'm also not aware of any restriction against the existence of BLP stubs. I view the concept of notability as a doorway through which a subject may pass through (in order to possibly get an article on Wikipedia) but may not contribute much once they pass through that door. I can show up at my local bowling alley with some cash and bowl, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to bowl a 300 or even bowl a set of turkeys. If a subject merely has a short Wikipedia article about themselves that only contains a very few pieces of reliably-sourced content, then so be it. I don't view notability as a doorway through which a subject gets a Wikipedia article (because of only one truly notable thing) that's full of poorly-sourced information.

BTW, the current accepted definition of "several" at the many AfDs that I've seen is still two...if that needs to be specified more clearly or increased, then so be it.

"we could define it in terms of where the award has at least a measure of coverage in mainspace (I suggest a section)." Again, I don't know what you're exactly talking about here. Guy1890 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A key to remember is that the purpose of the subject-specific notability guideline is to define criteria that, if met, indicate the likelihood of GNG-quality sources existing (but may be difficult to get a hold of in the short term) or coming to exist in the near future, such that we can presume the topic is notable to allow it to have a stand alone article and be developed on the open wiki. To that extent, the general condition "the person has been nominated for a major award" is not a sufficient condition, as this falls on the weak definition of a "major award" as not all major awards are created equation. Again, my example of an Oscar or BAFTA is good, since these are pinnacles of the industry and even being nominated is an honor that will create coverage of the person. On the other hand, this isn't likely going to happen with MTV Video Awards. Hence, the criteria as given is weak, without better explanation of what are major awards or listing those awards out specifically. The alternative idea of being nominated for awards form X different sources is also reasonable. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Have you been participating in PORNBIO AfDs or DRVs? It is not good enough that encultured wikipedians remember the nuance. The guideline should be intuitive and useful on a single reading by a newcomer. The guideline brings newcomers into conflict with actual practice. The guideline as written focuses on dot point achievements at the expense of appropriately sourced content. The guideline needs fixing. If you don't like this proposal, do you have something better? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've avoided PORNBIO, but I've been involved all over notability. The text on this page matches the approach used at WP:N and most other subject-specific notability guideline. The problem is that the statement in question, at least for ANYBIO, is "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.", the issue of what is a "well-known award or honor" is going to be the subject of debate and combative discussion ("I've never of this award!" "Trust me, everyone in this industry knows this!") I would rather see, over time, a list of actual named awards that qualify here to be filled out. It will be a potentially long list, and will never be complete but it will be more objective and avoid the issues I can envision you're talking about. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've actually been trying to develop a listing of awards that meet the major award (as it relates to PORNBIO at least) threshold that I originally proposed far above. Give me a few more days, and I'll likely have something to look at. Guy1890 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• But this is not about awards. It is only about mere nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nominations for major awards, like the Oscars, even if a one-off, is generally a strong sign that there is critical discussion about why that person was nominated for that major award - the nomination doesn't come out of the blue. So, following the "presumed notability" model that we use for subject-specific articles, it would make sense to allow a standalone bio to stand on the fact a person recieved a nomination for a major award with the presumption GNG-quality sources exist or will exist. If this turns out to be false, and no GNG sources are ever discovered, we can AFD the article later. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I was surprised by the boldness of stripping ANYBIO without prior consensus or a current discussion but I have long agreed with this. Awards/nominations by themselves do not indicate notability as their listings are primary sources and secondary coverage that the nomination/award exist is a shallow basis of notability. There must be more substantive coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely agree with the proposal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose, per common sense. Eg., being nominated a "mere" half dozen of times to the Oscar for best sound is a clear sign of notability in the relevant field of sound mixing, not less than winning one. Loren L. Ryder was nominated to 14 Academy Awards for best sound and I doubt anyone would argue that he is a non-notable individual or that the page about him is mere "promotion": conversely, that's "information". I'm not saying that all the nominations count towards notability: what it counts is the value of the award, the number of the nominations, the timespan between them etc. It would be sufficient dealing with these subjects with the good old common sense, weighting these noms as "signs" (and not automatically guarantees) of notability. And about "promotion", every article about a person (excluding serial killers, terrorists and a few others), a film, a song, a book, a company, a product could be seen as a direct or indirect promotion to the relevant subjects. Every source we use in our citations could be seen as a direct or indirect promotion to the source. A very little of this encyclopedia would survive if we should apply this witch hunt approach towards "promotion". Cavarrone 14:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is Loren L. Ryder notable for the 14 nominations, or because the New York Times published his obituary in 1985? I would argue the latter. The specific notability guidelines, like WP:ANYBIO, are there to provide guidance on presumptive notability. Per WP:ANYBIO, we presume that anyone who has received a major award, like an Academy Award, has also received significant coverage in reliable sources. Should we presume that anyone who's been nominated for such an award, even several times, has received such coverage? Perhaps not. Pburka (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • In fact, that's why we currently presume that anyone who's been nominated for such an award several times is ultimately notable, the two things are linked. However if you look at the most recent winners (not just nominated) in similar technical categories, you will find that many of these Academy Award winners apparently fail GNG (and we are talking about the best known award in the entertainment field). Sure, when they will be dead they will receive some obituaries, at least in specialized publications, and some coverage is very likely to already exist in some niche publications, but if you try to use our usual web tools the coverage that comes out is often quite unsatisfactory. Cavarrone 15:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately Loren L. Ryder turns out to be a poor example, since he is notable for the five Oscars he won in addition to the twelve he was nominated for. Our article was incomplete at best. Pburka (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry for the example (if the article misses five Oscar wins, referring to it as incomplete is a very kind comment) but I assume my point was clear. I will fix the article asap. Cavarrone 16:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Not only nominations, but even winning. If the award is truly a significant one (Oscar, etc.), finding sources about a winner will be trivial. There are no obscure Oscar winners about which little source material exists. On the other hand, there are a lot of other, more minor awards, in many different areas, in which being nominated or even winning might not occasion much coverage. In that case, we should evaluate case by case whether there are or are not sufficient sources to sustain a full, in-depth, balanced biographical article. If the only reference material we can find is "X won Y", but the award itself is notable, a "List of Winners of Foo Award" is probably more appropriate than a bunch of permastub BLPs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's pure theory, you are probably just looking at categories such as Best Actor or Best Director. Actually, there are a bunch of obscure Oscar winners that definitely are hard to source. Eg. Ray Beckett (sound engineer), winner of an Oscar and a Bafta. Or Mindy Hall. Or Aldo Signoretti. Or Paul N. J. Ottosson. I'm not saying they are unsourcable or their articles are permastubs, they are probably just waiting the editor who has enough off-line specialized publications to expand them... but actually articles like these in an AfD discussion that ignores ANYBIO would be likely deleted for lack of significant coverage. We'll throw out the baby with the bath water. Cavarrone 20:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• • I agree with Smokeyjoe's proposal and Seraphimblade here, PORNBIO needs to be reformed or removed as they are no different. The area probably has way more potential to cause harm to the subject than any other biographical area in the project. We been getting too many complains lately though WP:OTRS or even IRC of people who did porn before, was nominated for a few rewards (mostly silly ones like best three way sex scene), doesn't meet GNG otherwise, and now wants their articles deleted because it is causing harm to the subject as they want to move on to a regular life. Most of these awards are sponsor and press release generated anyways so comparing them to a Oscar is pure nonsense. Secret ^account 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree with the proposals but fully support the thought process behind them, this proposal as it stands doesn't go far enough but I'll support it if we can do no more. We really need to sit down and decide what awards and what nominations we should be using as inclusion criteria. Pornography biographies are being created at the rate of a dozen a week and the only claim to any sort of notability is being nominated for an award. These awards are handed out by trade journals reliant on advertising and there is evidence the awards reward advertisers and not talent (see the sources at AVN_(magazine)#AVN_Adult_Movie_Awards). The AVN Awards, which are probably the biggest biography notability related problem on Wikipedia at present have more than 100 categories, taking into account the way in which some awards reward multiple people as they relate to sexual performances, along with the way traditional awards reward multiple producers, and all the other professions rewarded with nominations at the Adult Movie Awards, the nominations alone would make around 2,000 people this year eligible for a Wikipedia article. If we restrict biographies just to the winners of the 100+ categories, you could still have over 200 biographies eligible purely from winning one award at the Adult Video Awards, despite no other hint of notability. It's not just pornography though - we need to really look at how we address specialist areas where awards we use to establish notability are given out by trade publications with clear vested interests in supporting their advertisers, to make sure we don't become a party to their promotional behaviour. Nick (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- "We been getting too many complains lately though WP:OTRS or even IRC of people who did porn before, was nominated for a few rewards (mostly silly ones like best three way sex scene), doesn't meet GNG otherwise, and now wants their articles deleted because it is causing harm to the subject as they want to move on to a regular life." This is the first that I'm hearing of this, and I'd like to see recent examples of it happeneing. It's been a rarity that I've seen pornography-related BLPs that have been deleted because of these kind of concerns. Also, no one that I know of thinks that a "best three way sex scene" meets even the current incarnation of PORNBIO.

"The AVN Awards, which are probably the biggest biography notability related problem on Wikipedia at present have more than 100 categories, taking into account the way in which some awards reward multiple people as they relate to sexual performances, along with the way traditional awards reward multiple producers, and all the other professions rewarded with nominations at the Adult Movie Awards, the nominations alone would make around 2,000 people this year eligible for a Wikipedia article." Again, I am not aware of anyone that has argued that every single award given out at the AVN Awards is "a well-known and significant industry award" under even the current PORNBIO standard. Please see my comments above on this same subject, as it relates to the AVN Awards, on October 8th. Guy1890 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• The main issue I have with this proposal is that it appears to suggest wanting to change WP:ANYBIO but it's really a disguised attempt to change WP:PORNBIO. I mean, if it's about PORNBIO, say it's about PORNBIO! I also don't understand, SmokeyJoe, why you keep assuming that anyone who !votes "keep" in a pornography-related deletion discussion (for example) must have a COI--and you have yet to provide proof of this. You've accused me of that before, and I can tell you right now that I have !voted "keep" in hundreds of articles, sometimes in subjects that I have never even heard of, thus proving that I have no connection to them. The fact that I have created a few porn-related articles proves that I am interested in the topic, not that I work for the industry. Also, I think it's good that Masem hasn't participated in porn-related AfDs and DRVs before because it's a fair and neutral observation into the situation.

But back to ANYBIO, there are still a few issues I have:

1. “Solely having mere nominations for awards gains no respect from the community.” If that were the case, India.Arie wouldn't have had an article until after she actually won the Grammy.
2. “If a person has won a single award, and has done nothing else of note, and has a total of zero commentary from reliable sources, they should not have a standalone article.” I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. For example, Peter Ostrum’s single film role was Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory and his article has never even so much as been prodded (and he wasn’t even nominated for anything; more on that later). Anyway, notability is not temporary.
3. “A nomination is not a reliable source, but even that aside, it would have to be accompanied by evidence of independence of the nominator.” Independence of the nominator? I don’t even think that’s possible. Why? Because people who serve on the Grammy review board (or whatever it’s called) are the ones that have to nominate artists, albums, etc. for Grammys, right? I mean, a random music listener can’t just email the corporation and say, “Kendrick Lamar deserves a Song of the Year Grammy for “Swimming Pools” and then all of a sudden that very nomination shows up.

In addition, maybe in subject-specific guidelines nominations are the most important evidence of notability (more on that in a minute), but there are plenty of people who have never been nominated for anything and are still notable (Andrew W.K., Brian Benben and the aforementioned Peter Ostrum) because they pass other guidelines. Unless I’m wrong, one guideline is all a subject needs to pass to be notable. And as for how “several” is defined, the count is still two because that is how the term is definied by Merriam-Webster but more importantly, if the number were to be increased, no consensus was met as to what that number should be.

One more thing I can say about PORNBIO is that I think the guideline is fine as is, but…there should be an addendum that states that passing point #1 of the guideline should be the notability qualification if pornography is the only thing the actor is known for. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 22:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• The proposal is to remove mere nominations as criteria. (Listening to Masem, maybe a compromise is to tighten the set of nominations). Nominations for awards (undefined) is common to ANYBIO and PORNBIO. No disguise. Yes, it's about PORNBIO, but PORNBIO should not be tighter than ANYBIO.

I strongly suspect that people in the porn industry would like to promote their industry by making their product look mainstream, and one way is to have pornstars listed in Wikipedia. I asked you, and you denied haing a financial interest in the porn industry. I suspected you becuase you have created a lot of porn related BLP-stubs. I agree that Masem overlooking this is very good.

(1). Might look into another time.

(2). I don't support BLP-stubs, even if some cases show a WP:CRYSTAL-prediction was correct.

(3). This is exactly my point. If the nomination is not independent, then it is not acceptable evidence for Wikipedia-notability. We require evidence of third-party interest. At least with an award, there was surely some judging, and some attempt at independence in the judging. If there is no independence in the nomination, we should not pay attention to the nomination itself (commentary on the nomination, yes).

Nominations are certainly not a requirement. Third party coverage is the requirement.

Several = 2 or more is not reasonable. Several is more like seven, more than a couple, more than a few, less than many. A better criterion would be "commentary on the person's several nominations".

"passing point #1 of the guideline should be the notability qualification if pornography is the only thing the actor is known for" Is the basis for this that being known for pornography means that normal BLP standards don't apply? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say normal BLP standards don't apply; I'm saying that sometimes people can be known for pornography and something else; the most common example I can think of is when a pornographic actress was only nominated once but was also a Playboy Playmate or a Penthouse Pet (that seems to be determined by a case-by-case basis except when she is a Playmate/Pet of the Year nominee, but...). And when it comes to a nomination being independent, well, I don't think you quite understand what "independent" entails in this case. I mean, if a porn star nominated him/herself for an award, that's not independent. But if the award nomination comes from AVN, XBIZ, etc, that is independent. (Some people have tried to argue in AfDs that the latter isn't third-party coverage after all, and then when asked how it isn't, no explanation is ever given.) I don't like the idea of getting rid of nominations completely (and seven is way too high a number) because that does show some sense of notability; and I also don't understand why a commentary on the nominations would be necessary (the list of Grammy nominations don't have commentaries, do they? Why should porn nominations?). One thing we do agree on, though, is that PORNBIO should indeed not be tighter than ANYBIO. Basically, with the nomination aspect, if an actor passes PORNBIO, s/he definitely passes ANYBIO. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, at this late date, I'm not so sure that the PORNBIO standard shouldn't be a tighter standard than the ANYBIO standard. There appears to be more than a few Wikipedia editors that feel, for a variety of reasons, that the current PORNBIO standard is too "lax". I'm not sure yet, but I don't think that we're going to get consensus on eliminating all nominations from all awards under ANYBIO & that personally seems like an extreme move at this point. While I also agree that 7 is too high a number for nominations (I would prefer a number closer to 4 or so), it's been obvious to me for quite a while that there needs to be a specific number in place instead of the current word "several".

It depends on what the ultimate purpose of this kind of change to PORNBIO is intended to be. If weeding out a significant number of pornography-related BLPs is the goal, then increasing the number of nominations to a significantly higher number than the current 2 will do that. If one is out to get rid of a larger amount of pornography-related BLPs, then eliminating nominations altogether from the PORNBIO standard will likely do that instead. Guy1890 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A thing to remember here: the point of the subject-specific notability guidelines is to provide an alternate route of presumed notability to allow a stand-alone page to be made, in lieu of eventually finding secondary sources to meet the GNG. That presumption can be challenged at any time, though per DEADLINE and BEFORE, you should give articles that meet the minimum requires enough time to develop, and then when you challenge it, you have to explain why you believe no such sources exist (documenting your efforts to find them). So if there is a person that meets PORNBIO but only ever has that one award nomination, leaves the industry a year later and never does anything of note again, yeah, that's probably a good case that our original presumption was bad, and an AFD some years after the award nomination would likely result in article deletion.

This is then the reasoning behind what these criteria should be - we want those presumptions to nearly always prove correct in the long run. If there's a criteria here that leads to cases of presumed notability that end up failing more than 10-25% of the time, the criteria is probably wrong. This is why presuming notability on a singular nomination for any major award is probably bad, but a singular nomination for known prestigious awards (Oscars, BAFTA) is reasonable. That's the type of thinking that is needed, as well as the logic when these are applied at AFD. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, Guy, I personally don't think PORNBIO is too lax; for example, in the past, scene-related and ensemble-related nominations alone were enough for inclusion, but now they aren't due to a discussion and consensus (in fact, the only time I really see complaints about PORNBIO being too lax are in AfDs from these kind of users). Basically, I have no problem having an objective discussion on possibly tweaking the guideline if that's what it comes to, but if the ultimate goal of some (not all) users wanting to change it is due to, as you said, getting rid of more porn biographies, well, that's not a good plan. I mean, then that begs the question, "Why should we get rid of more porn bios?" (Actually, the same kind of question would come up if that was the goal of a proposal for any other subject-specific guideline.) Also, Masem, what exactly is the difference between a "major" and a "prestigious" award? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected

­This redirect needs an Rcat (redirect category template) removed and two Rcats added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)]] {{R to other namespace}}

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)]]

{{Redr|to project|from shortcut|protected}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE MIDDLE LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)