Talk:Brandi Love

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Pornography Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michigan Start‑class Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: North Carolina Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Women writers Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

NoRivalsMedia (talk · contribs) This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight.

Content issues

This page *seriously* requires some cleanup, removal of NPOV, non-encyclopedic text, potential advertising, etc., if not a notability check to begin with. 91.33.195.121 (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is very confusing. Is it talking about one person or two persons? It sounds like two separate people, in which case it should be split into two articles (or none, as the notability of either seems questionable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.70.238 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

The section should only include notable awards, and only awards that were actually won. The RISE award was being discussed recently here. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions don't equate to policy. One award was won and there were several nominations, again sourced. If you don't like it, fine, but please stop trying to make up justifications for content that has been extensively discussed by Porn Project members over the last several months and years. If the award become notable for its own article, fine, until then a win or a nomination is just a statistic citable like any other. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to WP:FOC.

This is a BLP. Anyone want to discuss policy and making this article encyclopedic? --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, using these awards and nominations as sources for statements in the article is a WP:SYN violation. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did a purge on the article and cleared out a lot of stuff but here's my $0.02. The RISE win, I'm inclided to say it should be in - especially since we can point to AVN as a source for it. As for the lack of an article for the RISE Awards, that's no more an issue than the lack of an article is for the NightMoves awards. Tabercil (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response.

"that's no more.." Correct, which is why I started this discussion to address the awards in general. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, but here we cover details where we have no sources indicating that the material is anything beyond promotion and puffery. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see your evidence that the awards that do not have a separate article are "anything beyond promotion and puffery" simply because they exist and someone won them. Being an experienced editor, you should understand that the existence of a WP article doesn't mean a subject is not notable in the real world. There are plenty of awards in the arts, science, and mathematics that barely get a mention in the press, but they exist and when they are won or achieved, inclusion in an article for a WP Notable subject isn't a problem. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notable isn't at issue. It does have criteria high enough that meets inclusion criteria for related articles.

"I'd like to see your evidence" Sorry, but you don't appear to understand. I'm saying we need sources to demonstrate that awards are worth mention, rather than being simply promotion and puffery. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Lots of folks seem to think that awards matter. Look at how often a musician bio gets altered to say something like "is a Grammy-award winning musician" or an acting bio gets changed to say "is an Oscar-winning actor". That to me is indicative of how much weight we put on things like awards. Tabercil (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy, Oscars --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of artists and scientists as well who receive awards that are completely unknown outside of their respective fields. The List of prizes, medals and awards is full of awards I have never heard of, but I don't remove a mention of someone winning them because of that nor do I declare them "promotion and puffery" because of my own ignorance. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"because of my own ignorance" You want to discuss ignorance? --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, a statement like that reminds me of one of the quotes on my Talk page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, no sources that demonstrate that these specific awards deserve mention, much less the nominations. RfC time? --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So to prep for an RfC: Using only primary sources for non-notable awards and award nominations violates WP:SOAP and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Given that these problems have been discussed many times with Hanswar32 (and Scalhotrod has taken part, even started some of the discussions), they look like WP:REFSPAM: User_talk:Hanswar32#Disputed_notability_of_awards, User_talk:Hanswar32#Hello, User_talk:Hanswar32#CAVR, User_talk:Hanswar32#Rise_Awards. --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started similar discussions at Talk:Alexis_Texas#Non-notable_awards and Talk:Bobbi_Starr#Non-notable_awards - articles that appear to get more attention from different editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." The concerns here are not WP:OR problems, but rather NPOV and SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As we've no secondary sources, the material should be removed. Given this is a BLP, it should remain out until there is policy-based consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY has more detail, but is focused on WP:OR problems. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ronz, just a quick reality check... You do realize that for the last week or so you've been having a conversation with yourself and making it look like a threaded conversation that others are involved in, right? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Scals for giving Ronz that much needed reality check. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE says, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. " --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I've quickly looked over the sources, and a bit of the article history. The sourcing is poor, the problems from the coi editing are still evident, and the redundancy in the article gives the appearance that no one is maintaining the article as a whole.

Granted, some of the primary sources may be fine as used. I wasn't expecting to find so very many problems with the sources so haven't yet taken the time to look how each is used. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVN has a conflict of interest

http://business.avn.com/articles/23029.html shows that AVN has a conflict of interest in their reporting on her. As such, it should not be used to determine weight. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its a non-profit trying to help out performers who are also parents. This so called judgement you've made is laughable. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Its a non-profit trying to help out performers". So we agree that they have a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I find your analysis of the source and its contents sorely out-of-whack... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. I say it has a conflict of interest. You say it is helping performers. In the context of the source, those are the same thing. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's helping, first and foremost, parents who happen to be part of the industry. Wow, seriously? You don't get that? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One person doth not a consensus make. No consensus has been established in support of the opinion that AVN, a widely cited publication providing news about the adult industry, is a primary source. At most, it might be argued that they have a COI, or may be primary, with regard to the rather narrow topic of Parents in Adult, most of the content concerning which is cited to an independent, secondary mainstream source. Other AVN-sourced content in this article has no policy-based reason to be questioned. So the question would seem to be, "Do we want to open a discussion at RSN to decide whether the comment about the discussion of Parents in Adult on The Howard Stern Show is adequately sourced?" 70.209.48.119 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. It doesn't appear to be based upon any application of policy or understanding of the source that I can see, which is what we want to base consensus upon. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]