Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:28, 3 January 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (people) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:BIO

Archives: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: G.F. (2013-05-06). "Who really runs Misplaced Pages?". Make Use Of. Alexandra Thom (16 July 2013). "Writing Women Back Into History". Brooklyn Museum. Seth Stephans-Davidowitz (22 March 2014). "The Geography of Fame". The New York Times.

Archives

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 09/2007 - 12/2007 04/2007 - 08/2007 02/2007 - 03/2007 10/2006 - 01/2007 06/2006 - 10/2006 05/2006 - 07/2006 07/2005 - 05/2006 08/2004 - 06/2005

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

Advice on notability

I am currently working on the Sleaford article and am in the process of rewriting the notable residents list. One of the "notable" residents listed on there is Joseph Hayat, but I am not sure whether he is notable enough; certainly, there is coverage in the media, but compared to some of the other residents I have found, I am not sure both about his inclusion on the page and, more importantly, about the notability of the subject himself. Rather than take it straight to AfD, I thought it might be better to discuss it first. I would be keen to see what other editors think. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC).

No opinion on whether he merits an article, but if he does and if he has verifiably been a resident of Sleaford, then he belongs in the list of its notable residents and shouldn't be removed unless his article is deleted. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my intention - it was more that, when looking over those mentioned, I checked his article and wasn't sure about whether it met notability criteria. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC).

Fleshing out proposal

See 1 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

PORNBIO Hall of Fame criteria

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.

I hope I'm posting this in the correct place. Anyways, WP:PORNSTAR (2) says, "is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent." This criteria is unreasonable and overbroad. The AVN Hall of Fame is not selective. Often, the AVN will induct people whose contributions to porn has been minimal. Look at the list of AVN Hall of Famers: https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame They began inducting members in 1995, yet they already have over 200 inductees (so at least 10 per year average). By comparison, the MLB Hall of Fame has been active since the 1940s, and only 240 players have been inducted. If you keep this requirement in WP:PORNSTAR, then we will soon have a Wiki page for many no-name pornstars, given the induction rate per year. Right now, some Wiki pages (Nick Manning, Devon, Pat Myne) survive solely on this terrible Hall of Fame exception.Redban (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Two of the three you've linked also list them as having won AVN awards, not merely being in its Hall of Fame, and one of those was also the lead in an apparently notable mainstream feature film, so they obviously don't "survive solely" on that criteria. The third is a county of England. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The AVN Hall of Fame was created long before 1995. If you take another look at the list, you'll notice several members don't have an induction year specified. Those are members who were inducted prior to 1995. Since the internet probably did not exist yet at the time those members were inducted, we have some difficulty finding online sources which specify the year they were inducted in. The only source we've found listing inductees prior to 1995 does not specify which years they were inducted in, it only confirms that they are a member of the AVN Hall of Fame. I've only been able to find one AVN Hall of Fame induction prior to 1995 which specifies the year; Anthony Spinelli (1986). The AVN Awards were created in 1984 and have been inducting members into it's Hall of Fame since at least 1986, perhaps even a little sooner than that. Pornography has been legal in the United States since around the late 60's or early 70's; that's over 40 years. In the 40+ years that the porn industry has been around, only 200 people out of the 100,000+ who have worked in porn have been inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame. That isn't a lot and being in that elite group of people is certainly evidence of notability. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

To Postdlf, Scene-related / Ensemble awards don't count (Pat Myne), male-only awards attract less attention and are less impressive because the amount of men in porn is so limited (Nick Manning), and the Devon I'm referring to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/Devon_(pornographic_actress). NightGales is not a recognizable award, so the overbroad AVN Hall of Fame is her sole claim to a Wiki page. Also consider Mark Wood, Kyle Stone, Julian St. Jox, and Mr. Pete. None of these deserve a Wiki page, but the ill-advised Hall of Fame rule grants them one.Redban (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• ...pointy question by a SPA account, just an attempt to backup this disruptive Afd, part of an anti-pornography crusade which include several retaliatory disruptive AfDs (, , ) and a bunch of indiscriminate, on-30-second-intervals improper and edit-summary-free notability tags (, , , ). Though I usually hope for the best, unless things change, it looks to me like we'll likely be seeing this individual very soon at AN/I for disruptive actions. Cavarrone 22:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Mathematics! https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame The AVN inducted 71 people before 1995. If you assume they began inducting in 1986, that's around 10-11 per year. Here are the number of inductees per year: 1995 (11), 1996 (8), 1997 (14), 1998 (16), 1999 (9), 2001 (13), 2002 (11), 2003 (14), 2004 (12), 2005 (12), 2006 (13), 2007 (12), 2008 (11), 2009 (11), 2010 (9), 2011 (14), 2012 (13), 2013 (13), 2014 (12). Therefore, the AVN typically inducts over 10 people every year. By 2024, it will have 400 members, based on these statistics. The AVN Hall of Fame, quite unlike the MLB Hall of Fame, is not selective; thus, the AVN Hall of Fame has no credibility worth considering in WP:PORNSTAR Redban (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• I would echo much of what has been written above in response to this thread that was started by a relatively new & at least mildy disruptive Misplaced Pages user. In addition:

Mark Wood (pornographic actor) was inducted into both the AVN & XRCO Halls of Fame & won at least one other, likely non-trivial XRCO Award, and he's also been a director

Mr. Pete is also a director and has one won at least one other, likely non-trivial XRCO Award

Devon (pornographic actress) has appeared in at least one major blockbuster adult film (Pirates) and has also apparently had many mainstream media appearances

Nick Manning is a director & has won at least one other, non-trivial AVN Award, and he has apparently had at least several mainstream media appearances

Pat Myne & Julian St. Jox are also a directors

Directors can be evaluated under the Creative professionals inclusion standard as well. The remaining articles from above need responsible expansion, not deletion through some further unfair tightening of the PORNBIO standard.

"male-only awards attract less attention and are less impressive"...in your own opinion that is. The major AVN Award categories (including their Hall of Fame) are quite simply the gold standard in the adult film industry. Guy1890 (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim that the AVN Hall of Fame isn't selective because it inducts more people than the baseball Hall of Fame is nonsense. 10 people per year is pretty selective. As a point of comparison, about 8 people receive Nobel Prizes every year. Pburka (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point, Pburka. I think about 21 Pulitzer Prizes are awarded each year, sometimes more. Winners are notable. The whole point of revising the PORNBIO guideline a year or so ago was to make it more difficult to judge porn stars as notable, and easier to delete articles about non-notable porn performers. Though I almost never edit porn related articles, my perception is that the revision was successful and is working. Why rock the boat now? Cullen Let's discuss it 06:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well, don't forget that the porn business is a business with many actresses/actors, which rapidly come and go, and which as a business has over the years kept expanding. Each year more and more girls try to become the next major porn star. In all fairness, given that demographic, an average of ten inductees per year isn't much. This standard/criteria should be kept in PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 29 December 2014, 10:24

PORNBIO Criteria #3

The text currently says "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." but this has often been taken to argue that even the most fleeting appearance in non-porn is an automatic pass. I'm not sure if the problem is the wording or the way that its being interpreted. For the sake of clarity can we agree what we mean by this text? There are two key words that seem to be open to question:

Featured - am I right that the meaning should be something similar to to include someone or something as an important part: The movie features James Dean as a disaffected teenager. . To me this should me someone who the film revolves around. Perhaps someone who has headline billing or is used as a selling point for the film? Is this right?

Notable - Presumably this is the wikipedia interpretation that means has been discussed in detail by two separate independent reliable secondary sources. Per WP:GNG? or WP:NFILM? Correct?

I'd be very grateful for thoughts comments on this so that we can reach a consensus that avoids arguments about the interpretation of this section in future. Spartaz 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The word "featuring" should not be interpreted too strict in this case. Featuring in this case isn't the equivalent of "star billing" but merely as appearing.

As to the word "notable", it's not the amount of sources but the quality that should be determining. Keeping on insisting on multiple sources, may mean that an entire category becomes redundant because for various things regarding porn, you'd be hard-pressed to find multiple sources. In certain cases one - independent and qualitative - source could be enough to grant notability. The question/focus should thus not be on the number of sources, but rather on what exact is "notable mainstream media"? For me these are the regular independent media sources, namely television- and newspapers and their accompanying websites. In that WP:GNG should indeed apply. -- fdewaele, 29 December 2014, 18:02 CET

Thanks very much for your comment. I think I'm in agreement with the second part but I'm not entirely at ease with the first. The trouble is that both featured and/or appeared are such nebulous phrases and are easily distorted. Does an uncredited non-speaking cameo count for example? That's appearing in by plain language and shouldn't be something that counts towards a GNG pass for a BLP. Likewise, Equity in the UK expects a speaking part for a credit in the film but that can be just one line. Featured at least implies some significance. I'll see whether the archives offer any further insight. Spartaz 17:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Featured" definitely seems to be more substantial than "appeared". The latter would, I guess, be verifiable if credited ("second passerby", "fourth soldier"), but I can't see how that would make anyone notable, pornbio or not. And I don't see why for any subject we would need to drop the GNG requirement of multiple sources. Remember, subject-specific guidelines do not exist to circumvent GNG, but serve as a shortcut to indicate GNG is most probably met (for example, if somebody got a Nobel Prize, we can safely assume that multiple sources exist). --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Relevant previous discussions: bit difficult to link as comments often fall within wider discussion of the subject so I'm going to quote/paraphrase and link so you can see the context for yourselves:-
  • This was an inconclusive discussion but there was a strand that featured meant something more then appeared
  • 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) 12:33 am, 7 October 2013, Monday (1 year, 2 months, 24 days ago) (UTC+1)
  • And we could make clear that appearing in multiple films is not by itself notable - it requires independent comment in reliable sources about these appearances that establishes notability.
  • When there is nothing to base an article on, then there shouldn't be an article. It makes no sense to require, on one hand, "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", and on the other hand declare entire classes of people notable where typically there is no mainstream media coverage at all. Hans Adler 12:36 pm, 23 November 2011
  • #3 refers to appearances in mainstream films, TV shows etc. rather than coverage in mainstream sources. The rationale for this is that supposedly only a top porn star would be able to make the crossover into mainstream entertainment. Epbr123 (talk) 6:10 pm, 2 January 2012,
• Spartaz 17:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• We certainly shouldn't have a guideline which says that porn actors are notable if they have any two appearances in non-porn media, no matter how minor. For non-porn actors the standard is a "significant role" (WP:ENT), and something similar should be imposed here. Naturally any such claim should have a reliable source to back it up, as should any other claim to notability. Hut 8.5 18:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• I have the impression that the key factor here is how inclusive we want to be in this particular category. As Hut's comment indicates, once we decide that we can adjust the criteria to suit our intentions. There's obviously a difference of opinion on the basic question. I am reluctant to say that going by what I personally think important/unimportant should be the standard, and so I think should be anyone else on either side of the issue . Sometimes the best way to deal with this here is to compromise. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem with the guideline and it should remain the way it is. If you want, we can clarify what being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" means. I think that in order for an appearance to qualify as "featured" it has to be major and significant. For example, Gina Lynn appears throughout most of the music video for Superman (Eminem song). Here's the music video. Gina Lynn appears in the video from the start until 1:45 and at 2:10-3:05. She obviously has a major role in that video, so this qualifies as featured. Now, Jenna Jameson appears in Eminem's Without Me music video at 0:23-0:26, 0:30-0:32, 0:36-0:39, and 0:56-0:58. Four appearances lasting no more than 2-3 seconds each, a total of only 10 seconds in the entire music video, does NOT count as being featured. This mainstream appearance is still worthy of mention in Jameson's WP article, but just doesn't contribute to her notability. Another example of an appearance that DOES qualify as featured is a porn star having their life documented on E! True Hollywood Story (E! True Hollywood Story#Adult industry entertainers). Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• To myself, the third part of the current PORNBIO inclusion criteria has always seemed very similiar, in a very, very general way, to our GNG inclusion criteria, and I don't think at all that the third part of PORNBIO just refers to so-called mainstream films. It refers, IMHO, to any kind of media that is considered to be mainstream. Again, IMHO, "featured" means that (whatever the specific type of media in question was) the subject (of a Misplaced Pages article) had a prominent role in that particular media appearance (music video, documentary, newspaper article, magazine, talk show, etc.). Notable is a pretty simple term to define here...you can't wander very far through Misplaced Pages's myriad of guidelines without running into that term. As for "multiple", well...that simply means more than one, and I believe that we've been extensively over that point the last time that PORNBIO was modified (tightened). In the absence of any past, clear reference to why the third part of the PORNBIO inclusion criteria currently exists the way that it does, it seems to be, again IMHO, there to simply indicate how far a particular person has "crossed-over" (kind of like in music) into what most in society would refer to as the "mainstream". If one wanted to replace the word "featured" with "significant" in the PORNBIO standard, then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that (since they basically mean the same thing to me)...but we're not at all just talking about film appearances here. Also, it's important to remember that PORNBIO is a sub-heading under ENT, which, to me, means that they already basically go together.

"Does an uncredited non-speaking cameo count for example?" IMO, no, it doesn't. Guy1890 (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Remove the clause completely. If a porn actor is to be considered notable on the basis of appearances in non-porn media, then any criteria relating to those kinds of appearances will be the same as for anybody else (other actors, musicians, etc.) – in other words, that person's case then simply becomes one of WP:ENT and will be evaluated on that basis. It makes no sense to have an extra set of criteria (presumably less tight than "normal" WP:ENT) regarding WP:ENT-type activities of people who also happen to be porn actors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" criteria in PORNBIO is actually pretty strict. I haven't seen anyone with 1. minor roles in notable mainstream media, 2. major roles, but in non-notable mainstream media, or 3. (obviously) minor roles in non-notable mainstream media, being kept at AfD. We require not just one, but multiple significant roles in notable mainstream media in order to meet this criteria. This is a guideline that very few porn stars pass and anyone who does is certainly notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be good if you could cite some examples so we can see how this looks in practice. Spartaz 18:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Isabella Soprano, Aiden Ashley, Raven Rockette, and Sensi Pearl. Their minor mainstream work was rejected as evidence of notability at AfD and did not save their articles from deletion. This criteria in PORNBIO is strict enough as it is. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks,that was really helpful. 3 of the 4 examples had #3 misused . Do we have any examples of where it has saved an article from deletion? Spartaz 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The PORNBIO inclusion criteria isn't "less tight" than our other biographical inclusion standards...it's (especially more recently) more tight...precisely because the general overall feeling on Misplaced Pages in more recent years is that Misplaced Pages apparently has "too many" pornography-related articles. I would caution again (as I did the last time that the PORNBIO standards were changed) that defaulting back to ENT for these types of articles will eventually lead us down a path to evaluating whether or not adult film performers have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", which is a path that really no one should be willing to go down, since it's pretty much a path to nowhere. Guy1890 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• My inclination is to remove it. We don't confer notability on academics if they've been featured in two non-academic works. Why is the notability of a porn actor dependent on (or otherwise impacted by) the amount of non-porn stuff they've done? Why is it even relevant? Seems like either a bone thrown to porn article creators to enable a back door to notability (no pun intended) or a bizarre "rescue from porn is inevitable" clause. The notability of an academic is based on citations/h-index or recognised work. The notability of an author is based on significant work. The notability of an actor is based on "significant roles in multiple notable films". All special criteria can be dispensed with in favour of WP:GNG. I'm not really sure why we have a special category for porn actors. In what ways is WP:NACTOR not sufficient? I imagine the suggestion is that all that straight-to-video porn might be significant to the industry but it will never be notable, right? I really can't see how its any different to any other d-grade actor who has only appeared in "made for the Syfy Channel" material. St★lwart 13:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"I imagine the suggestion is that all that straight-to-video porn might be significant to the industry but it will never be notable, right?" I don't think that anyone has ever argued that any pornographic film (whether released online, on video, laserdisc, etc.) would ever qualify under the current PORNBIO #3 criteria. Again, we basically have "a special category for porn actors" in order to restrict the number of pornography-related biographies on Misplaced Pages. Guy1890 (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The question I have is who benefits from this standard? What is the point of having something contentious like this if there is noone who gets to keep an article as a result? I'd like to see some evidence that this standard is making a difference. I can't actually recall anyone benefiting in my many year at DRV and AFD but I do have a memory like swiss cheese. Can anyone help with this? Spartaz 11:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Air Force Amy, looking back at the discussion history. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

PORNBIO too arbitrary and too permissive

In #1: "...well-known and significant industry award..."

This is insufficient. Editors will argue all day long on the AfDs what is "well-known" or "significant". Let's have some restrictive definitions. And, how many award-generating bodies are going to be included?

In #2: "...or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame..."

The inclusion of Hall of Fame criteria essentially permits the industry to retcon everybody into notability to game the system over here at Misplaced Pages; for example, here's AVN inducting 28 people in one shot; (XRCO demonstrated commendable restraint in inducting only 9 last year) - are we to believe that the straight-to-video sex industry is generating 37 notable people every year with this one criteria?

At least with the "significant" awards (whatever they are), you know you're only getting a few per year.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just leave it alone and give it a rest, will you. You seem intent to be an anti-porn crusader. You've been listing such AFD's all day, some which clearly pass WP:PORNBIO, and even a 2nd nom of an AFD which was closed only two days ago. Whereas you apparently find WP:PORNBIO to be too permissive, methinks it's too strict and would plead to loosen up this criteria, especially #1. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 22:53.

I've been doing lots of things "all day". But let's not talk about me; I'm not the subject. --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No but your behaviour is a bit questionable. You seem hell bent on reopening various discussions which already have been discussed “ad nauseam” and around which there is a consensus. For instance firstly the Hall of Fame point has already been discussed in full not more than five days ago. See the discussion above. I simply can’t believe you didn’t notice that. Why reopening that discussion at this point, when merely a couple of days ago there was a clear consensus to leave it be? Secondly #1 of WP:PORNBIO is clear enough in that it pertains to individual awards and in my humble opinion is even too strict by excluding scene-related and ensemble categories but I abide by that consensus. As to defining what a significant award is as to the name of awards: AVN and XRCO are a given, but I wouldn’t pin it solely on only those two. That might be to americentric. We don’t discard the BAFTA’s or the Cesars either just because the Oscars are the most well-known movie awards. I would thus plead to leave #1-2 just as they are. – fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 23:32.

This is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, attempting to edit policy to suit one's own cause. You've constantly been nominating articles for deletion, and when the !keep votes cite PORNBIO as a policy or guideline, you're attempting to change that so they can't use it anymore. Tutelary (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a talk page; I'm talking on it. I have made no attempt to "edit policy" (edit PORNBIO) as you claim.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press