Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 8

Suggestion

When a few months ago i adeed a new section in a pornographic actor's article someone deleted it saying it's not "encyclopedic". It was a section about the performer's penis size and technique in porn scenes. Why can't we add such content in pornographic actors' articles? For example manu musicians have "Artistry" section in their articles which is about their voice, their songs' style and critical comments to their appearance. Pornographic actors are only known for their penis, vagina, boobs, ass or whatever. Why can't we write anything about the only talent thet are famous for? --Croxx036 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would really need to see the specific section and article to determine what was meant by "not encylopedic" to form a full opinion. However, I think it possibly may be relevant in some instances in this particular field, but it really depends how much independent secondary coverage there is. You can't just add some bloke's cock size to his article for the hell of it, but if there are reviews of films and porn bios which discuss this particular feature, then it would possibly be germane to such an article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

For example Mandingo is known for the very big size of his penis. A few months ago in his article there was something like this; "Mandingo is known for the large size of his penis. According to some sources it is considered as one of the largest male genitalias in the porn industry." Why this is not encyclopedic? Even New York Post wrote about his penis size commenting "that would make even Anthony Weiner blush" [1]. This kind of comments from reliable sources about the performers can be use in the articles. --Croxx036 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

BLPs require "high-quality" reliable sources. Crap you find online generally doesn't qualify. "dreampenisguide.com" is not an acceptable source for a BLP. "altpenis.com" is not an acceptable source for a BLP. The New York Post may be an acceptable source, but you can't cite it for things it doesn't say. When you can't find genuinely reliable sourcing for whatever yoiu want to insert into an article, it's not appropriate behavior for you to cast aspersions on editors enforcing BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream media as a rule doesn't usually cover porn, so when it does I think it is an opportunity to extend Wikipedia's coverage of the porn industry with legitimately sourced information. If the NY Post consider Mandango's 12-inch schlong relevant then I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude it from the article, in this particular instance. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody excluded it. Nobody put it in. Instead, the Post article was cited for claims it didn't make. I fixed that, and Croxx is whining about things that didn't happen rather than trying to edit reasonably. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Listen, can you just stop follow me? Keep your opinion to yourself, it's so clear that you're against porn articles. --Croxx036 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this, I wasn't impying anything about the nature of your edits, or taking Croxx's side. It's the same with all content disputes: we need to see the specific claim and the source it is attributed to before determining whether something should be included or not. I was basically just pointing out that in principle I am not opposed to discussing someone's penis size in an article if it can be reliably sourced and context relevant. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move: Camgirl to Webcam model

Discussion to rename Camgirl to Webcam model at Talk:Camgirl#Requested move 29 August 2015. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding draft, category, redirect and template classes

The project should allow for draft, category, redirect and template classes so that Category:NA-Class Pornography articles can be split apart. It would help identify the few draft articles in there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

How would we go about allowing for that? I've spent a fair amount of time assessing unassessed articles that were under this Project's purview in the past, and we're basically down to these articles (Unassessed-Class & Unknown-Importance), which mostly appeared to be Page 3 Girls - that were at one time in the recent past added to this Project because (at the time) it was thought that appearing as a Page 3 Girl meant that one was involved in softcore pornography. There was a controversy over that then as well, and I'm not how (or whether or not) it was resolved.

These articles (NA-Class & Mid-Importance) are mostly re-directs & templates, and these articles (NA-Class & Low-Importance) are mostly re-directs. The articles that you basically highlighted above (NA-Class & NA-Importance) do have a lot of categories, templates, images, portals & re-directs in them, but that's an area (categories, templates, images & portals) that I've strayed away from in my Wikipedia editing so far. It basically has appeared to me that there weren't any draft articles in that listing either.

I think it's true (for some reason) that even when one classifies an article as as re-direct (maybe just within this Project?) that it appears as "NA" on the article's talk page. Guy1890 (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes need to be made to Template:WikiProject Pornography. Some projects reject expanding the classes, some accept it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of a Project template that supports the change that you're asking for, so we can compare it to this Project's template? Again, editing templates has not been something that I personally have done much of on Wikipedia so far. Guy1890 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Biography uses Template:Class mask and added the categories at Template:WikiProject Biography/class with this edit. I don't know if there's one that directly uses the template alone (or else we can just do it as an admin edit request at the template page) as most admins I think know this stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move: AVN Hall of Fame

Discussion to rename List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame to AVN Hall of Fame at Talk:List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame#Requested move 30 November 2015. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Brett Rossi

In light of her high-publicity lawsuit filed against Charlie Sheen yesterday, I have restored the deleted article on Brett Rossi to draft space. Please feel free to develop it there until it is suitable to return to mainspace. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Andrea Dworkin reassessment

Andrea Dworkin, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlookerG ^talk 01:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bonnie Rotten

Erpert, Guy1890, & Morbidthoughts, I have been very busy lately and I'd like you all to know I'm not done with the above debate on awards. All I've been able to do is log in every couple of days and revert any vandalism done to articles on my watchlist. Right now, I could use some help with Bonnie Rotten's article. Approx. 75 edits have been made to it in the last couple of days, most, if not all of them, inappropriate. What is purportedly her real name and the real name of her mother has been added to the article and I need someone to figure out if they are reliably sourced or not. I removed claims that she escorts from the article and explained why I found the sources unreliable, but my edit was reverted without explanation. I don't have time to review each and every edit/cited source(s) and I don't have time to deal with edit warring. Could you guys help me out please? Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Took a hacksaw and removed the bad sources including instagram, TMZ, youtube, and government records (which are not allowed). If he attempts to edit war over this, he will be blocked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, who is the user that's edit-warring? Is it Nicsmart? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

MT did most of the heavy-lifting, but the article appears to be in decent shape as of right now. There is some slight engagement on the article's talk page as well. Guy1890 (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

XBIZ Award for Girl/Girl Performer of the Year

Would anyone be willing to please assist with this article (or any similar article)? Believe it or not, it was actually speedily deleted in close to its current state, which led to this discussion. Although the deleting admin did userfy it (after which I brought it back to mainspace after adding a few independent sources), I'm still a little uneasy because as you can see from the conversation, it appears that he is contemplating the deletion of all such list articles. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And to play it safe, I've been adding independent sources to other list articles that didn't seem to already have any. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There's obviously nothing wrong with using the awarding organization to cite who won which awards or who was nominated for which awards, but using those types of sources alone in any article will limit it's appearance of notability to some for sure. There may have been some issues in the recent past with the XRCO Award article (taking away some independent sources that confirm who won which awards in favor of just citing the awarding organization) as well, which I found concerning at the time. Even using another adult film media trade source (like using AVN to cite some XBIZ award winners, etc.) is better than just using the original awarding organization itself for citing who won (or was nominated for) which awards.

I've also never thought that it was especially constructive to have separate list articles for each award category of some of the major adult film award ceremonies either. Those types of articles may end up having limited notability as well. Guy1890 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would only be against creating separate list articles for the awards that didn't count for notability on their own merits; like, say, if someone created an article for XBIZ Award for Best Group Sex Scene. For example, AVN Award for Best New Starlet (which wasn't created by me, btw) has never been challenged. (In addition, mainstream articles like Primetime Emmy Award for [foo] are never challenged either.) And for such articles that I did create, I never really noticed that most of the sources in said articles were primary; but as I said above, I'm in the process of fixing that (or other people are welcome to as well; I don't get to participate on Wikipedia much anymore because of my work schedule). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is a "well-known and significant industry award"?

I believe that the NightMoves Award is well-known/significant enough to meet WP:PORNBIO. In addition to passing GNG, NightMoves was at one point the third largest in the porn industry (XBIZ has most likely surpassed it like it has with XRCO) and remains porn's third longest running awards show. If NightMoves was the porn industry's third largest award in 2002, and there were at least four other porn awards given out that year (AVN, XRCO, Venus, and NINFA) which are well-known/significant under PORNBIO, then logically, so is NightMoves, since it's bigger than two of them, right? Exactly what criteria does AVN, XBIZ, XRCO, FAME, Venus, NINFA, and Hot d'Or meet that Urban X and Adam Film World don't? Is there some sort of "checklist" of requirements a porn award needs to meet in order to be well-known/significant enough for PORNBIO? If so, what are these requirements? Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to start a discussion about this here. Although I am not a member of this wikiproject (some people probably think I am, but I'm not), a discussion seriously needs to be had about this. Lately, a lot of articles about pornographic actors and films that have actually won awards are up for deletion with the rationale usually being something along the lines of: "Although [subject] has won the award, it has been established that [foo] is a non-notable award". Subsequently, when users (usually ones who !vote "keep") ask where that consensus was established, the question is either never answered at all or answered by saying something like: "In several AfDs, it has been determined that...". Rather than having to search through "several AfDs", I have a list of suggestions.

1. If an award ceremony has a long-standing article, it can be concluded that enough users deem the ceremony to be notable (this includes, but is not limited to, AVN, XBIZ and XRCO).
2. If a user suggests that an award ceremony is non-notable, then rather than place a {{notability}}, {{prod}} or {{afd}} tag on the articles of subject that won the award, instead place such a tag on the article of the ceremony itself; and if it is one of the latter tags, thoroughly explain your non-neutral reasoning. (Side note: If people suggest that pro-pornography users cannot be neutral, I'll use myself as an example and state that two of my favorite actresses had their articles deleted, and I started those AfDs myself (Alison Tyler, Alina Li).)
3. If the article for the award ceremony ends up being deleted, it would then be suitable to place one of the aforementioned tags on an article of subject that won the award...but only if pornography is the only major thing the subject is known for.

---

Also keep in mind that notability is not temporary. For example, the Urban X Awards are no longer given, but that does not mean that subjects that won the award are now non-notable.

Thoughts? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I Oppose expansion of the list of awards that confer a presumption of notability under PORNBIO. As I see it, the purpose of specific notability guidelines is to provide a useful indicator that a topic is highly likely to meet the GNG if the full range of reliable sources could be reviewed. The problem with adding more and more dubious awards to the guideline is that it opens the already wide doors to more and more porn actor biographies that utterly fail to meet the GNG, who have received only routine coverage in promotional porn industry trade publications, with no attention whatsoever from actual independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Cullen, which award ceremonies do you consider dubious, and why? In addition, what proof do you have that the sources listed for the already present articles for the award ceremonies aren't independent? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The notion that every single person who wins a given award is notable just because the award itself is notable is ludicrous. Notability is not inherited. Consider military awards like the Bronze Star Medal. There is absolutely no doubt that the Bronze Star is notable, and far more notable by every measure than the NightMoves award. Does that mean that every winner of the Bronze Star is notable? Absolutely not. The vast majority of Bronze Star winners are not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

None of that answers either question I asked. And for the record, WP:INHERITED doesn't mention anything about awards or people who win them. (Are you going to say that a musician whose only claim to fame is winning a single Grammy Award isn't notable?) Also, if a pornography-related article has a source that is also about pornography, that doesn't automatically mean that said source is primary. After all, why would the source be about a different topic? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please try to improve your reading comprehension, Erpert, since this is the third time in recent days that you have misunderstood the plain meaning of my written words. I never wrote or implied that there were no independent sources present in the NightMoves article. Yeah, there is some non-porn industry Florida newspaper coverage. Instead, I say that there is no consensus that winning a NightMoves award confers notabilify on a porn actor or film just as there is no consensus that winning a Bronze Star confers notability on a soldier. Is that clear? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Cullen328, you need to chill out with the attitude. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It is inconceivable that a person who won a Grammy award will not have received extensive coverage in a wide variety of independent reliable sources. It is entirely predictable that a large percentage of porn award winners receive coverage only in a relative handful of "walled garden" porn industry trade publications, and are ignored by general circulation publications. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's important to remember that there's been a long-term process at work here to generally denigrate adult film industry awards to try & eventually remove them from consideration at all at AfD, particularly for BLPs. What's been going on in the most recent months is an attempt to "weed out" pornography-related articles that either no longer obviously meet the stricter standards of PORNBIO or intentionally "push the envelope" to see if a few more award ceremonies and/or specific award categories can be removed from consideration at AfD. There also does not always appear to be a lot of honest BEFORE activity going on at certain, recent pornography-related AfDs.

The way I've always viewed the PORNBIO standard as it relates to awards is:

-Is the award ceremony "a well-known industry award" ceremony? (It absolutely must have a Wikipedia entry in order to even be considered "a well-known industry award" ceremony.)

-Is the specific award category given by that ceremony a "significant industry award"? (Having a Wikipedia entry on that specific award category might help out, but I kind of doubt that it would matter much at AfD even at this late date.)

Not all specific award categories given out at any ceremony (adult film-related or not) are obviously going to be well-known, significant, major awards.

The real issue with the NightMoves Award ceremony is that there's a new Wikipedia article about it finally, and that award ceremony gives out a lot of "Fan’s Choice" and "Editor’s Choice" winners to the same categories. Accepting all of those award winners as passing PORNBIO will allow (I'm sure in the view of some at AfD) "too many" pornography-related BLPs to be kept at AfD. That's what making the PORNBIO standard stricter a few years ago was all about in the first place - significantly reducing the amount of pornography-related content on Wikipedia, period.

The issue with the Urban X Awards is that a lot of those now old AfDs where those awards were discussed weren't very well attended at the time. No one really seems to care about that at AfD at this late date either.

That old Adam Film World Awards AfD was apparently from before that award ceremony had a Wikipedia article (one that needs updating apparently).

In the past, I tried to come up with a specific listing of which award ceremonies and specific award categories were major, well-known and significant industry awards in the adult film industry, but that listing has really never been updated over time and does not enjoy the support of official Wikipedia policy. I doubt it ever will either.

Suggesting that adult film-related award ceremonies be put up for AfD in their entirety is an extremely dangerous pathway to try & suggest. The idea that those award ceremonies would be given a fair hearing there is pretty much ludicrous at this late date. Also, as I stated above, just because an award ceremony has a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that all of the specific award categories given at that ceremony pass PORNBIO. That's never been the way that I've seen things go at AfD in the past, and I doubt that it ever will in the future. Heck, some people at AfD won't even admit when a pornography-related article passes the GNG! AfD & DRV is all about "consensus", which is, unfortunately, all about who shows up to a particular discussion at a particular time.

At this late date, I don't even want to touch the whole "notability is not inherited thing", since notability is really just something that exists in some odd way on Wikipedia. That's a huge rabbithole to nowhere about something that's pretty much made up out of whole cloth. Guy1890 (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy1890, I'd like to address your comment on how "The real issue with the NightMoves Award ceremony is that there's a new Wikipedia article about it finally, and that award ceremony gives out a lot of "Fan’s Choice" and "Editor’s Choice" winners to the same categories. Accepting all of those award winners as passing PORNBIO will allow (I'm sure in the view of some at AfD) "too many" pornography-related BLPs to be kept at AfD. That's what making the PORNBIO standard stricter a few years ago was all about in the first place - significantly reducing the amount of pornography-related content on Wikipedia, period." First of all, I don't see how NightMoves having two winners per category (e.g Best Actress (Fan's Choice) & Best Actress (Editor's Choice)) is any different from AVN having two winners per category (e.g. Best Actress (film) & Best Actress (video)). Secondly, the vast majority of NightMoves award recipients have won some other well-known/significant award(s) and would meet PORNBIO regardless of their NightMoves award(s). Repeat winners are also common. For example, lets look at the Best Actor category. A total of 23 NightMoves Best Actor awards have been given out, but there are only 16 different recipients of it, since Steven St. Croix, Mike Horner, Peter North, Evan Stone, and Barrett Blade have all won the award twice and Randy Spears has won it three times. Out of the 16 Best Actor winners, 14 are AVN Hall of Famers, so they meet PORNBIO anyways. The remaining two who aren't in the AVN Hall of Fame are Dillon Day and Marcus London. Dillon Day passes PORNBIO with his XRCO Award for Best New Stud, so that just leaves Marcus London as the only Best Actor winner relying solely on his NightMoves awards to pass PORNBIO. Now, lets look at the Best Actress category. A total of 23 NightMoves Best Actress awards have been given out, but there are only 20 different recipients of it, since Jenna Jameson, Serenity, and Stormy Daniels have all won the award twice. Out of the 20 Best Actress winners, 15 are AVN Hall of Famers, so they meet PORNBIO anyways. 4 out of the remaining 5 not in the AVN Hall of Fame, Julie Meadows (AVN Best Supporting Actress), Carmen Luvana (XRCO Best New Starlet), Eva Angelina (AVN/XRCO Best Actress & XBIZ Female Performer of the Year), and Hillary Scott (AVN/XRCO Female Performer of the Year/Best Actress), all pass PORNBIO with their other awards. That just leaves Alexis Amore as the only Best Actress winner relying solely on her NightMoves awards to pass PORNBIO#1. I'm not going to provide an exhaustive listing like this for every single category. What I will do is count how many awards NightMoves has given out to performers/directors in total, which is 326. Due to repeat winners, the total number of recipients is 178. Most NightMoves award winners are AVN/XRCO Hall of Famers and/or recipients of other well-known/significant awards from other ceremonies. There are only 65 NightMoves winners without any other well-known/significant awards or AVN/XRCO Hall of Fame inductions. 12 of them (Alexis Amore, Kelly Shibari, Sophie Dee, Nikki Delano, Misty Stone, Priya Anjali Rai, Brandi Love, Calli Cox, Jenna Presley, Angelina Armani, Danica Dillon, and Kendra Sunderland) have enough mainstream media coverage in reliable sources and/or enough mainstream media appearances to pass WP:GNG and/or PORNBIO#3. That only leaves us with 53 people who rely solely on their NightMoves award(s) to pass PORNBIO. 53 divided by 21 (the amount of ceremonies in which NightMoves awards have been given out) is 2.5 people. The NightMoves awards, on average, only make 2.5 people pass PORNBIO per year. That is half the number of people that XRCO made to pass PORNBIO in 2015 (Penny Pax, Casey Calvert, John Strong, Adriana Chechik, and Ryder Skye hadn't won any well-known/significant awards that weren't scene-related/ensemble prior to the 2015 XRCO ceremony). And XRCO has a very small number of categories for a porn award. 2.5 people a year is nothing and will not lead to an overwhelming increase in the number of porn-related WP articles. Also, considering NightMoves well-known/significant under PORNBIO will more often lead to EARLIER creation of articles than ADDITIONAL creation of articles. A lot of porn stars/directors received the first award of their careers from NightMoves. Devon won NM Best Actress in 2003 and did not win anything else until her AVN HoF induction in 2010, Pat Myne won NM Best Director in 2004 and did not win anything else until his AVN HoF induction in 2011, and Eric Masterson won NM Best Actor in 2005 and did not win anything else until his AVN HoF induction in 2014. Although it's not like complaining about the possible increase in porn articles on WP is even a good argument to begin with. An awards significance has absolutely nothing to do with that at all. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically, you've got to be able to show that the NightMoves Awards have gotten at least some (preferably mainstream) media coverage outside of the immediate area where that awards ceremony has been held so far in order to prove definitively that these awards are, in fact, "a well-known industry award" ceremony. I've definitely heard of them throughout the years but mostly (if not exclusively?) through adult film industry media coverage, which, unfortunately, is always going to have (unfairly IMO) a stigma attached to it here on Wikipedia. The NightMoves Award categories do appear to have a similar structure to how other adult film industry award ceremonies give out a lot (maybe not all?) of their specific award categories, so proving that those specific award categories are "significant" (or major, in my own words) awards shouldn't be that hard at all.

The AVN Awards apparently stopped giving out film & video-based individual awards around-about 2008. Again, at this late date, an award ceremony that basically gives "two bites at the apple" isn't going to welcomed by many (that have a distinct anti-porn bias anyways) with open arms. There may have been a distinction at one point in the past between adult films that made it to the mostly non-existent adult film movie theaters of yesteryear and those that only made it to home video/DVD release, but those days are pretty much gone now.

I don't think it matters if it's 2.5 more articles per year or 50 more articles per year..."too many" is "too many" to those with a certain bias, and that's what you are really up against at this late date. It isn't exactly fair, but it is what it is... Guy1890 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy1890, as I've demonstrated below, mainstream media coverage outside of media local to the awards ceremony is an unrealistic expectation for a porn award that only AVN meets. And you don't think that AVN is the industry's ONLY well-known/significant award, do you? I'm not asking for you to give me the possible opinion of other users on the NightMoves Awards, I want to know YOUR opinion on it. There is both mainstream and adult industry reliable source coverage stating that the NightMoves Awards were at one point the industry's third largest and remain the industry's third longest running. XBIZ is probably the only award that has surpassed it, so NightMoves should be no lower than fourth place, and longevity is a difficult thing for a porn award to achieve (there's more short-lived defunct awards than not). Do YOU consider this a well-known/significant award and can I count on you to support it as meeting PORNBIO at AfD, at least for the obvious ones like Best New Starlet, Best Male/Female Performer, Best Actor/Actress, Hall of Fame, etc.? If not, what does it take to convince you, not others, YOU, that it is a well-known/significant award? Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Your attempts at votebanking is inappropriate for the wikiproject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No, votebanking is notifying a user known to share your opinion on a topic about an AfD, DRV, etc. to influence it's outcome. I'm asking what his opinion on the NightMoves Award is because he hasn't stated it, just given the possible opinions of other users while seeming torn between both sides himself and not making his own opinion on the matter clear. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." What do you think you're doing asking him, "...can I count on you to support it as meeting PORNBIO at AfD" Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you that votebanking was not my intention and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Assume good faith, MT. In no way do I condone votebanking either, but to be fair, isn't that what the porn deletionists are doing when they cloud AfDs with supposed consensuses on seemingly non-notable award ceremonies without providing actual proof of such a consensus? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I (and at least one other in this discussion) have stated what you need to show in order to move forward at this point. At this early date, I don't think that I could support anything more than the "Editor’s Choice" versions of the Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Director — Feature, Best Director – Non-Parody, Best Director — Parody, Best Feature Dancer, Best Female Performer, Best Male Performer, Best New Director, Best New Starlet, Lifetime Achievement Award, NightMoves Hall of Fame, and maybe the Best Transexual Performer awards as "well-known and significant industry awards" at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there an actual reason behind this Fan's Choice/Editor's Choice distinction you're making, or is it just arbitrary? Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that you consider FAME, a fan-voted award, to be well-known-significant ([2]), but consider NightMoves Fan's Choice award as lesser than Editor's choice? Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe Nightmoves is a well-known award; not considering from an industry perspective but a mainstream one. Well-known is a stricter standard than simply meeting the notability threshold. Look at the difference of quality and quantity of coverage on Google News between:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between "notability" and "well-known" in your opinion, MT? (By Wikipedia standards, I mean.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

One other thing I noticed is that this is exactly the kind of discussion where all the users who seem to want to weed out porn articles should be commenting, but interestingly they're quiet. An actual fair and objective discussion rubs them the wrong way, I guess. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Not just being covered by reliable sources but reliable sources with large circulations. You can't expect anti-porn (or anti-cruft) editors to follow or participate in this wikiproject. The formulation of PORNBIO was ignored by them until we proposed it on the WP:BIO talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't expect anti-porn editors to participate? Okay, that's fair, but it would make things more balanced. But...if the rest of us can agree on what awards are notable and what aren't, that should prove that there's no bias from even people like us. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't cite any discussion/guideline supporting your "reliable sources with large circulations" claim and you cherry-picked the only three awards that meet that "criteria" (AVN, XBIZ, XRCO) while ignoring these:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

which have either fewer sources than NightMoves or coverage in only local sources without "large circulations". FAME, Venus, NINFA, and Hot d'Or all have consensus supporting them as well-known/significant under PORNBIO. How can "being covered by reliable sources with large circulations" be a requirement to meet PORNBIO's well-known/significant award criteria if there are awards that don't meet that "requirement" and still have consensus supporting them as well-known/significant? Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, Rebecca, MT probably only mentioned those three because those are the three that I initally mentioned. But I see your point as well. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca, you know fully well that there has never been consensus on the criteria for "well-known and significant" given this discussion you participated in.[3] However I note that you defended the AVNs in that discussion with mainstream media citations with large circulations. Erpert asked me for my opinion and that is my opinion that I will apply at AfDs. I don't believe FAME to be a well-known award. As for the other awards, I don't believe a Google News search is appropriate without knowing the appropriate Non-English terms to search for those awards or knowing how extensive their news database is in those languages. You may notice my participation in those AfDs you cited that I argued on the basis of the GNG rather than trying to figure out of if those awards are well-known. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO, "large circulations" is a relative term. Moreover, if it's a niche subject (which pornography appears to be), well, of course it probably won't get mainstream circulation, but...that doesn't diminish notability. Unless I misread WP:SIGCOV, no topic has to have coverage everywhere to be notable. Porn deletionists (and I'm not including you in this, MT) apparently try to drive home the notion that PORNBIO (for example) always requires significant coverage in mainstream media, when really, that's only one of the qualifications (and frankly, it seems like a last-resort qualification, when the actor in question isn't notable otherwise). I'm not saying that that qualification should be omitted; I'm just stating that the coverage that award ceremonies like NightMoves and F.A.M.E. have been getting prove that they are indeed significant ceremonies. But can we at least agree that if a porn actor's only claim to fame is winning a seemingly non-notable award, then the article for the award should be nominated for deletion first, rather than the article for the actor? If the award's article survives deletion, then thus should the actor's award. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The argument is not that the award is not notable. Just not well-known (and significant) which of course is subjective and as you used the term "relative". I had argued in 2012 for a more objective standard Lookup 14:32, 1 May 2012 but that did not pass. So winning an award that is notable but not well-known and significant can not save a performer from deletion. "Well-known and significant" was borrowed from ANYBIO when we first formulated PORNBIO and people didn't want to allow a lower threshold in PORNBIO than ANYBIO. Therefore, I consider whether an award is well-known from a mainstream perspective not some niche industry perspective. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

PORNBIO's "well-known and significant INDUSTRY award" criteria obviously has nothing to do with being "well-known from a mainstream perspective". If you're asking for coverage from non-local sources, that is an unrealistic expectation for porn awards that only AVN meets. The XBIZ and XRCO awards take place in Los Angeles and only have actual coverage in Los Angeles sources like the Los Angeles Times ([4] & [5]). The rest is passing mentions. Also, I doubt that even AVN itself is "well-known from a mainstream perspective". Most people don't even know that awards for porn exist. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You want to argue semantics? A "well-known and significant industry award" is not the same as "well known and significant award in the industry". The LA Times is a paper that serves a metro area of 13+ million and its writers/columnists are syndicated around the country. But hey, if you want to argue that XRCO and XBIZ are not well-known by the mainstream, be my guest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I just realized something. The NightMoves Awards have received a lot of covered by the St. Petersburg Times/Tampa Bay Times ([6], [7], [8]), which is the 16th most circulated newspaper in the country, so it should meet your "reliable sources with large circulations" standard. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Tampa Bay media doesn't cut it for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

MT, I'm afraid your standards might just be way too high for this issue. What does everyone else think about my proposal? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not MT? Los Angeles media only is enough for Los Angeles-based XBIZ and XRCO awards. What's with this double standard? See "Primary Locality" for the Los Angeles Times, which is "Los Angeles", not "Nationwide". Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The standard is that the LA Times is much larger than the Tampa Bay Times and serves a much larger population. Got it?! Your attempt to equate the two is ludicrous. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Circulation of the Tampa Bay Times is 340,260 while circulation of the Los Angeles Times is 653,868. The NightMoves Awards have also received coverage in the Sun-Sentinel ([9]), which has a circulation of 163,728. The Los Angeles metropolitan area is 18,238,998, the Tampa Bay metropolitan area is 2,842,878, and the South Florida (where the Sun-Sentinel is circulated) metropolitan area is 6,375,434. Circulation of Tampa Bay Times + Sun-Sentinel = 503,988, which comes quite close to the Los Angeles Times circulation. The populations of Tampa Bay + South Florida = 9,218,312, which is over half the Los Angeles metropolitan area, but still a lot. Also, I don't believe the Sun-Sentinel can be considered local to the Tampa Bay area just because they are both in Florida. South Florida is in south-eastern Florida and Tampa Bay is in the center of Florida's west coast. So now we also have slightly non-local coverage. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The circulation numbers you rely on are archaic given that it is based on paper copies and digital subscriptions. You have to consider general web traffic given that people also read their news online outside of digital subscriptions: LA Times Tampa Bay Times Sun-Sentinel Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

My argument is not that NightMoves is MORE well-known/significant than XBIZ and XRCO, my argument is that it is AMONG the industry's well-known/significant awards. That's like trying to say that XBIZ and XRCO are more well-known/significant than AVN, they're not, but that doesn't mean they're not well-known/significant at all, just that AVN is even more well-known significant. I know all numbers above for NightMoves/sources covering it are lower than the numbers for XBIZ/XRCO/sources covering them, but the NightMoves/source's numbers are still pretty high. The NINFA Awards still have recent consensus supporting them as well-known significant. A search for "Premios NINFA" yields results that are mostly for either a different award by the same name, or passing mentions in articles where the main topic is something else, usually a profile of a Spanish porn performer who has received a NINFA. The NINFA Awards take place in Barcelona and actual coverage on them is from local Barcelona newspapers like El Periódico de Catalunya ([10]) and La Vanguardia ([11]), which have even lower circulation, totaling 316,198. Even combined they have less circulation than the Tampa Bay Times alone. As for web traffic, elperiodico.com had 24,872 unique visitors in November 2015 and lavanguardia.com had 65,351 unique visitors in November 2015. Combined, they had 90,223, which is only about 7% of the Tampa Bay Times 1,271,645. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much stock on the Spain google news search as being complete since Google has removed Spanish publishers from their engine.[12] I also don't know if traffic/circulation/reach metrics should be directly compared outside the U.S.. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Also coverage from the three largest newspapers in Spain:

• El País[13]
• El Mundo (Spain)[14]
• ABC (newspaper)[15]

Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

One other thing that people should keep in mind...the common argument by porn deletionists is that the article in question isn't supported by sources independent of the subject...but what's happening is that they are misusing the term "subject" from a Wikipedia standpoint. Let's use the example of one of the (if not the) most famous porn stars: Jenna Jameson. In her case, the subject is her, not pornography. If most of the sources in her article came from, say, her own website, then those wouldn't be independent (but that doesn't mean that those sources can't be used at all; simply use them with care). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty safe to say that enough people are in agreement that based on sources and coverage, NightMoves is indeed a notable award ceremony. Thus, if someone tries to have the article of a subject that only won a NightMoves award deleted, they can be directed to this discussion, which is in a central location. But if anyone tries to argue that this consensus is votebanking, I have three reasons why it isn't:

1. As with AfDs or any other discussion, anyone was welcome to participate in this discussion (unless they are topic-banned from anything pornography-related, that is).
2. A few members of this wikiproject questioned the notability of NightMoves, which thus debunks a pro-pornography bias.
3. A centralized consensus makes it much easier to prove a point than, again, "It has been decided in several AfDs that..."

To elaborate on the "centralized consensus" idea (sorry to overuse that phrase, but I just think it drives my point home), let's say someone nominates Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song) for deletion. The discussion might go like this:

Not notable. WikiNominator

Keep. It is a charted single, and consensus is that charted singles are inherently notable. WikiVoter

And where is this consensus? WikiNominator

Right in WP:NSONG. WikiVoter

---

See, NSONG is in a central location, so users can easily go there and thus see what's up. But this is what usually happens in situations about pornography:

Has won an award, but it has been decided in several AfDs that [award] is not a notable award. WikiNominator

Keep. Which AfDs? WikiVoter

(crickets chirping) WikiNominator

---

In addition, although this is probably unintentional, admins who close such AfDs as "delete" might inadvertently be looking at votestacking rather than considering the merit of the comments behind the !votes. All in all, though, if any other porn award ceremony has questionable notability, well, we can do the same process with that ceremony's article. (And again, of course it would be easier to {{afd}} the article, but for some reason some users seem to rather suggest consensuses being met via different AfDs rather than proving them)—and for the record, I'm on the fence about the notability of Adam Film World awards (the awards, not the magazine). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A recent AfD for a FAME Award recipient was closed as "no consensus", but it shows more support than opposition for FAME meeting PORNBIO. I myself support FAME as well-known/significant under PORNBIO, but FAME is obviously not as major as NightMoves, which has much more source coverage than FAME. NightMoves is also the industry's third longest running awards show (2015 was its 23rd annual ceremony) while FAME only had 5 ceremonies. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

One more thing I'd like to add to the "too many" additional porn bios concern some users may have, which was addressed above. As I pointed out last month, NightMoves only makes, on average, about 2.5 people pass PORNBIO per year and it is much more likely to lead to EARLIER creation of articles rather than ADDITIONAL creation of articles. Well, now that the AVN and XBIZ awards have taken place, four people (Kleio Valentien, Ryan Driller, Jessy Dubai, Kendra Sunderland) whose only non-scene/ensemble award wins prior to AVN/XBIZ 2016 were from NightMoves, have now won either an AVN or XBIZ non-scene/ensemble award. Accepting NightMoves Awards as passing PORNBIO only gave them notability under that guideline three months earlier than it would have otherwise. Also, XRCO 2016 hasn't taken place yet, so there might be even more winners there who previously relied solely on NightMoves to pass PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe the majority of the people are more concerned with amount of bios that have shitty sourcing and content beyond winning an award. That the industry sources repeat what a publicist or the performer says without fact checking aka kayfabe which marks like Erpert deny. Yes, those are wrestling terms but I have enough sense to know that porn is as real as professional wrestling. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Marks"? What are you even talking about anymore? I hope that wasn't a personal attack. Also, the idea that porn is as real as professional wrestling seems to be your own opinion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrestling mark: The fact that you believe performers are in relationships because they tweeted so or a video says so demonstrates this especially when I go behind the curtain on a regular basis meeting their true significant others. Porn is a fantasy. That's not really in dispute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Driller

The title Ryan Driller is currently WP:SALTED due to repeated recreation after this AfD back when he failed WP:PORNBIO. He recently won the XBIZ Award for Male Performer of the Year, which is the most prestigious category a male porn star can win in, therefore passing PORNBIO. A draft was rejected by AfC and requests by me and another user for a new AfD have neither been declined nor even acknowledged, just completely ignored. How else can we get Ryan Driller's article restored and a new AfD to take place? Rebecca1990 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear, this kind of shows what happens when someone insists on trying to recreate an article that manifestly fails even PORNBIO. Had it been left, this could probably have been recreated without drama after the XBIZ award. You basically have two choices - go to DRV to overturn the AFD on new information or take it to ANI. The latter course is most likely to get referred back to DRV anyway. It would be an interesting exercise to see whether DRV is now willing to give weight to PORNBIO and award wins now that the guideline has been tightened up. I don't think you have much to lose if you do - the current tension is probably around attempts to stretch PB#3 beyond breaking point rather than award wins. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• What's going on here is apparently a few people at AfC (which has been a waste-of-time process for some time now) don't know or are unwilling to acknowledge how Wikipedia's notability guidelines actually work. AfC continues to unfortunately act as "gatekeepers" of Wikipedia at this late date, which is a position that they have never had the authority to occupy. The XBIZ Awards are certainly "a well-known" and notable adult film award ceremony and the "Male Performer of the Year" award category is a "significant industry award" category in several award ceremonies. There's also nothing wrong with sourcing an award win to the awarding organization itself...although I bet that there might be other, usable sources that aren't directly from XBIZ for this kind of award info.

DRV has still never shown any tendency to respect our PORNBIO standards (tightened or otherwise) and AN/I is not the place to resolve article content issues. If you can't find an administrator that's willing to unsalt the article space in question (whether there's another AfD or not), then this specific issue is at a dead end...we just won't have an article about the subject here at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Shyla Stylez

Hey guys, if someone wants to improve the article of Hall of Fame inductee Shyla Stylez. The old versions are restored. Actually, I won't really be able to do so as I am not the best English speaker. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Pimmara Charoenpukdi vandalism/spamming

There is no WP article for Pimmara Charoenpukdi and there never has been, but this name keeps getting added to articles where it doesn't belong. For example, "Pimmara Charoenpukdi" (whoever that is, because I don't even know) was added to the XRCO Award as a recipient of three XRCO Awards in 2016, even though the 2016 XRCO Awards have not taken place yet. This name has been added to many different articles (see my March 1-8 contributions with "vandalism" in the edit summary) by many different IP addresses ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]) and only one actual account ([29]). I managed to actually finish removing "Pimmara Charoenpukdi" from every single article/template it was added to. I searched for pages that link to "Pimmara Charoenpukdi" on WP just now to find out that many articles have been spammed with that name again. Since this is happening to so many different articles, there is no specific article to semi-protect, and since it's being done by several different IP's, there is no one to block. Blocking all IPs that have done this so far is pointless because one or two new ones a day pop up to make the same edits. I know that websites can be WP:BLACKLISTED. When that happens, edits containing that website's URL cannot be saved. I'd like to know if it's possible to "blacklist" a WP article title? If possible, a temporary (1 year?) ban on the ability to save edits containing "Pimmara Charoenpukdi" may cause whoever's doing this to get tired and stop spamming WP. So, is such a ban possible, or are we going to have to deal with searching WP for links to "Pimmara Charoenpukdi" on a daily basis and removing them? Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about them, but that sounds like a problem for the Edit filter. You can request a new filter at WP:Edit filter/Requested. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Brett Rossi

Is Draft:Brett Rossi ready for mainspace? Cheers! bd2412 T 14:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I edited the Draft:Brett Rossi page a bit and provided more reference to help. Can this move to mainspace? -NewComVIc (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Newcomvic

• Frankly no. She is only notable in the context of her relationship with Charlie Sheen so BLP1E applies and any mention of her should be in his article. If you disagree, this would need to go through DRV Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"I do disagree. Brett Rossi was a well established adult film star with multiple award nominations before she was with Charlie Sheen. She is at least as famous as many other Adult Film stars on Wiki. She is now back in the adult business and has numerous interview with her." -NewComVIc (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)newcomvic

All because of Sheen. She isn't notable as a pornstar so that should be the end if it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"I am sorry but none of that was because of Sheen. She was an AVN nominated porn star, Penthouse Pet, Miss Howard Stern, Twisty's Contract Girl, Was on the cover of numerous magazines, and one of the highest paid girl/girl performers all before meeting Sheen. Audrey Hollander as well as many other porn stars are on wiki with much lower rankings. Her current status as a porn star has is well establish and she presented at this years AVN, in addition to now being a columnist for Thrillist and BroBible. Please review the page and you will see she was established and well know long before the encounter with Sheen." -NewComVIc (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Does Dallas

Hi, Some prudish contributors want to censor (again) this article. See also the talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page has gone nowhere. I have started an RfC about a similar case, A Free Ride, which has had a hardcore pornographic movie embedded in it since 2012. The result of this RfC should be helpful in guiding what happens with Debbie Does Dallas. The RfC is here. Right Hand Drive (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have opened an RFC at Debbie Does Dallas to address whether the video should be accessible directly in the article, or if it should be behind an external-link box to find it at Commons. Alsee (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to have the same discussion in two places. I agree we need to have an RfC at Debbie Does Dallas, but let's wait until the RfC at A Free Ride is done. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

NOTE/CLARIFICATION: My original RFC was withdrawn to await the outcome at A Free Ride, but someone else insisted on running the RFC immediately at Talk:Debbie_Does_Dallas#RfC:_Placement_of_video. The RFC template expired, but it's still open to comments until someone shows up to close it. Alsee (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

gotham city

I was adding links to Bat Pussy as it had been on the orphan list and added a link in Gotham City in the film section just stating that Bat Pussy was set in Gotham City. Another editor reverted this saying links to parodies didn't belong. I questioned whether he had just made this up and asked for a MOS guideline. His response was just "A film making fun of Gotham City or Batman isn't the same thing as a Batman film (some articles have their own separate section for parodies, though I'm not even sure about the inclusion of those)." I suspect he really may be objecting to a link to a pornography related article in a comic related article. Gotham City is fictional in the first place! Does anyone want to get involved in this. If not, I will just let it go and move on to something else. MB (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The article looks to be reasonably defined as "the Gotham in DC universe", so I'd probably let it go. On the other hand if/when an article includes general media referring to the topic, then it would not be valid to exclude porn-because-it's-porn. Alsee (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Amber Rayne/James Deen

James Deen allegedly injured Amber Rayne during a scene and the incident was brought up in conjunction with the December 2015 rape accusations against Deen. Rayne did not perceive the incident as a rape/sexual assault and only spoke out about it to avoid rumors that she was a rape victim of Deen. Here's Rayne's exact words:

• "My name came up in an interview and I only said something so ppl wouldnt think that happened to me too"
• "people were saying I was amongst those involved. I spoke about an isolated incident because that's what people were referring.."
• "I was not sexually assaulted. I was in a scene that was unnecessarily brutal and left me injured... It was an isolated incident."
• "I never made him out to be a rapist and said that we had a bad/very very rough first interaction."

Rayne originally recounted the incident to The Daily Beast in an article that doesn't even claim she was accusing him of rape, in fact, it quotes her as having the desire to maintain her friendship with Deen. Despite this, most headlines reporting Rayne's recent death depict her as a Deen rape accuser. In order to dispel the rumor that she accused Deen of rape (it's being widely misreported that way by what is usually reliable mainstream sources), should Rayne's article clarify that all she did was share her story of being injured by Deen during a scene with The Daily Beast, or should it just not be mentioned at all? Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Are these people notable?

Natassia Dreams has been nominated for AVN transsexual of the year twice and Xbiz twice, Deauxma has been nominated for AVN Milf of the year twice and Sarina Valentina are they notable? Dwanyewest (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nominations are not sufficient for notability under PORNBIO. The most important question you have to answer for any certainty on notability is whether reliable sources cover these people in sufficient amount.

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Natassia Dreams & Deauxma apparently still just have award nominations, which are no longer included in the current version of PORNBIO. Any attempts to recreate Deauxma are likely doomed given its controversial history at AfD & DRV, which has historically been a venue that's been a waste of time for adult film performers in the past. It's probably just better to try & improve User:Rebecca1990/Deauxma for now until it meets the GNG standard. Sarina Valentina apparently has some Tranny Awards wins in 2011 & 2012 for "Best Solo Model", which probably won't count for much at another AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the title should be changed!!

I think Ethnic pornography should be changed to Interracial pornography as that is more widely used as discussed per Talk:Ethnic pornography. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think these terms should have redirects

I think shemale porn, tranny porn, t-girl porn should all be redirects to Transsexual pornography as they are widely used terms! Dwanyewest (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

So be bold and create the redirects. (By the way, shemale porn already exists as a redirect to Shemale, which, according to the article's lead, is "used to describe the genre of pornography that feature transgender women". Maybe you should fix the redirect or add a hatnote to Shemale.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to redirects properly last time I tried I messed with Women's MMA so I would rather someone else do it. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

PORNBIO and significant or well-known awards

There's a discussion at WT:BIO#PORNBIO and significant or well-known awards that relates to this wikiproject. clpo13_(talk) 20:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:PORNBIO

Spartaz has proposed rewriting WP:PORNBIO. Once again. His proposal is here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: There's another (possibly-related?) discussion ongoing here about certain pornography-related BLPs. Guy1890 (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Next PORNBIO guideline

MShabazz, Dream Focus, Guy1890, Erpert, Softlavender, Fdewaele, Pwolit iets, Locke Cole, Morbidthoughts, Cavarrone, Unscintillating, Hobit, Sammy1339

Ok, so we all oppose a stricter WP:PORNBIO guideline. The problem is that 1. we're slightly outnumbered here (votes: 13 oppose/17 support) and 2. articles that objectively meet the current PORNBIO guideline have recently gotten deleted anyways. It seems to me like we're either getting a stricter PORNBIO guideline, or keeping the current one with the discussion resulting in no consensus, which will lead to many deletionists dismissing PORNBIO as "deprecated" in future AfD's for award-winners and getting their articles deleted. I think the best thing to do is for both sides to compromise on a guideline that falls in between the current one and the proposed one. Here's my idea for PORNBIO#1:

"Has won either two awards, or one award in a category that has been awarded in at least ten different years. In both cases, the award(s) must be well-known and significant and not for a scene or ensemble."

Here's some examples of what this guideline would look like: Dani Daniels has three non-scene/ensemble awards and none of them are at least 10 years old. If she had only one of these awards, her article would get deleted, but by having at least two awards, regardless of how long they have existed, she gets to keep her article. Casey Calvert (actress) has only one award, but since the category she won in has existed for at least 10 years she gets to keep her article. Now, Presley Hart has only one award in a category that was awarded for only 8 years and is now defunct, so her article would get deleted. If this does become the new PORNBIO, let me explain what constitutes "award in a category that has been awarded in at least ten different years". First of all, slight name changes do not make a new or different award. For example, the XBIZ New Starlet award will turn 10 years old in 2017. It used to be called "New Starlet of the Year" (2008-2012), but is now called "Best New Starlet" (since 2013). "New Starlet of the Year" and "Best New Starlet" are the same award and anyone who tries to argue otherwise in order to delete a recipient of it is being intellectually dishonest. Secondly, "awarded in at least ten different years" does not mean that the award is simply ten years old. For example, XBIZ's New Male Performer of the Year/Best Male Newcomer was first awarded in 2010, but it will not meet my proposed version of PORNBIO if still awarded in 2019 because it wasn't awarded in 2013 or 2015, it will have to wait until 2021 (if awarded yearly from now until then with no further breaks) in order to meet the "awarded in at least ten different years" criteria. So, what do you guys think of my new PORNBIO suggestion? Too much (will result in too many deletions of notable porn stars) or not enough (won't result in enough deletions to satisfy the porn deletionists)? Lets work on a more reasonable/less vague PORNBIO than the one currently being proposed here, then suggest it as a compromise. Comment below with your thoughts. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think a counterproposal might be a good idea, Rebecca1990, if we were dealing with rational people. However, it is clear from their comments that many, if not most, of the supporters of Spartaz's moronic proposal (a) don't know what the current PORNBIO requirements are, (b) don't care what the current PORNBIO requirements are, and (c) just don't want pornography in their encyclopedia. I may join a counterproposal that other editors develop, but I have enough things to keep me busy that I cannot volunteer to try to talk to a wall. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't jump the gun entirely here, mostly since the discussion in question is far from over, and I doubt that there will be any successful attempt to ram through changes to the PORNBIO guideline without at least a few weeks of discussion. The other issue is that there are many users that don't want to compromise on any guideline that won't basically have a 100% deletion success at AfD.

Besides the obvious users that have a long-term axe to grind in this subject area, one of the main problems with a few relatively recent AfDs is that unfortunately some users are voting to keep articles that don't actually meet the existing PORNBIO standards. The facts are that award categories like "Superslut of the Year", "Orgasmic Analist", "Best Actress—Couples-Themed Release", "Best Actress - All-Girl Release", many fan awards, etc. (whether they currently have a Wikipedia article written about those specific award categories or not) aren't major awards which meet the "well-known and significant industry award" standard. Like it or not, there's also no current consensus at all that any of the NightMoves Awards meet this same standard, and we've already gone round-and-round on that issue here on this talk page before. Not every, single, solitary award category that isn't a "scene-related" or group award is a major award. The fact of the matter is that there are still many, many pornography-related BLPs that can likely be deleted under the current PORNBIO standard, and no where near all of those articles really need to be saved in the first place.

There's really been way, way too much discussion on awards, nominations & the like in general in this subject area over the years. Heck, there are even users going around adding "notability" tags to just about every pornography-related article that doesn't currently cite some kind of award win at all as if that's all PORNBIO says in the first place.

Getting rid of the "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" wording (which I don't endorse at all) won't change the fact that an article that basically passes GNG almost always will be kept at AfD. The "being a member of an industry hall of fame" wording is something that I personally predict likely won't last long after whatever change to PORNBIO might be made soon. There are unfortunately enough users on & off Wikipedia that want pretty much all pornography-related content removed from an online encyclopedia (that literally has little to no limit in size or scope over time) like Wikipedia. Ideology unfortunately does not trump "intellectually dishonestly" in this subject area of Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How about this for a counterproposal: "Porn performers are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Why not treat porn performers just like we treat other people? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen: Here's the problem...when it comes to pornography-related articles, antis seem to always (purposely?) misinterpret the word "independent". WP:ARTICLE will clearly explain to anyone that the subject (or topic) of any article on Wikipedia is the title of said article. For example, Vanessa Veracruz is currently at AfD despite winning the award for Girl/Girl Performer of the Year, with the "delete" !voters not only claiming that the award isn't significant (which is also false, btw), but that the article doesn't have any independent sources. In other words, they're attesting that pornography is the subject of the article. The only article on Wikipedia where pornography actually is the subject is, well, Pornography.

@Guy: There actually have been discussions on which awards (and award ceremonies) are or are not considered major (for example, the former excludes Best Solo Sex Scene). I wouldn't be against an addendum to PORNBIO that gives links to, say, an area on WP:PORN that in turn has a list of such discussions.

@Rebecca: Other than what I just said to Guy above, I don't think PORNBIO should be tightened at all; it's having enough trouble breathing as it is. And the idea of us being outnumbered shouldn't be relevant, but unfortunately, a lot of times admins close porn-related debates like this while inadvertently considering votestacking (need I remind anyone of the reason why nominations went away?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Why not treat porn performers just like we treat other people?" Because Wikipedia already has a very high standard for adult film performers than for people involved in many, many other fields (including those covered by ANYBIO or the "highly-notable"...with no current sources outside of its own publication...Playfair Cricket Annual). Your proposal basically sounds like a repeat of GNG anyways...what's the point of that?

When we have people start citing old, bad-faith AfDs (in the original discussion cited far above) that were started by banned, disruptive sockpuppets and people that were on a mass-AfD disruption spree as reasons why PORNBIO needs to be changed, or people try to discuss how non-notable award ceremonies have somehow resulted in pornography-related articles being kept at AfD (Hint: They haven't, ever...as far as I can tell over these last many years)...then that personally sets off my BS-meter.

BTW, "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" isn't a major adult film industry award category...it's obviously a niche category & that's part of the initial problem here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't? Since when? And that would indeed tighten PORNBIO, which I thought was the opposite of the goal of this discussion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Better yet, as I stated above, although I do remember discussions about which awards are considered major, I don't recall any of said discussions taking place outside of individual AfDs. A centralized discussion about the awards would be better. (SN: We did have a centralized discussion about award ceremonies last year.) Actually, I think I'll create a discussion for awards right now. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Response to Erpert

Hello Erpert. Consider Adult Video News, the leading trade publication of the U.S. porn industry. This very page, WP:WikiProject Pornography, says "their porn star profiles are often copied from other sites and cannot be treated as reliable." A writer for the New York Times observed that it is a publication "whose articles are really more like infomercials", and that it is "about 80 percent ads, and is clearly targeted at adult-video retailers". If anything, other porn industry news sources have lower standards. They are the very antithesis of "sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Infomercials are not independent and sources that copy "profiles" from other sites without fact checking and professional editorial review are not reliable. Are there any good sources that counter this assessment of the porn industry trade press?

Consider a biography on the AVN site today, that starts out: "Jessica Drake has a beauty and provocative personality that’s helped her develop one of the most robust and acclaimed careers in adult. It’s a career that’s rising to a new level this year, as she continues creating big budget features with Wicked’s Brad Armstrong—she received AVN’s 2009 Best Actress and Best DP Sex Scene awards for Fallen—while branching out on her own as a filmmaker." Utterly promotional with no pretense of neutrality. That article ends by stating: "Bio provided by Wicked Pictures". I give them credit for honesty, but they disqualify themselves as a source for BLPs. The largest porn industry trade publication is most certainly not an acceptable source for BLPs on Wikipedia, because it is neither reliable nor independent.

Our policy on Biographies of living people is very important and cannot ever be ignored. It is not just a policy here on English Wikipedia but is an overriding policy imposed on all its projects by the Wikimedia Foundation. That policy states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." In addition, that policy states, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Porn industry sources are not high-quality sources and are much more like tabloid journalism, and their use in biographies of living people is therefore contrary to BLP policy. I hereby formally challenge every single BLP assertion cited to each and every unreliable porn industry trade publication. I am very firm about that, because policy requires me to be firm.

Erpert has an overly narrow definition of what an independent source is, derived from a narrow reading of a brief FAQ page which is neither a policy nor a guideline. That definition is entirely unsupported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Here is the definition, which is linked from the General notability guideline: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective (i.e., a neutral point of view). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." Again, I am using AVN as an example, since it is the leading U.S. porn industry trade publication. A publication that consists of 80% paid advertising from commercial porn industry interests and reprints content written by commercial porn industry interests is not a reliable, independent source by Wikipedia standards, especially for biographies of living people. The problem with using porn sources in biographies of living people is that they either focus narrowly on the person as a commercial entity or they are fictitious. Industry insider sources describe film credits and awards with a garnish of promotional fluff, and those that fans read describe an ever-changing fantasy "biography" that is no more accurate than a purported biography of a Disney character.

Consider the biography of an indisputably notable porn performer like Ron Jeremy. At quick glance, I see about a dozen reliable, independent sources in that article. I doubt that anyone would try to delete it, but if they did, I would vote to keep it. Consider also a much more recent performer with a shorter career, Mia Khalifa. Her biography also has about a dozen references to reliable, independent sources. She is indisputably notable. Every porn performer BLP should at least approximate the standards of those two biographies.

Awards handed out by media outlets that are neither reliable nor independent cannot automatically confer notability, in my view. It is certainly possible that such an award could trigger coverage by reliable, independent sources such as those that have devoted significant coverage to Khalifa and Jeremy. But this is by no means automatic or predictable. Instead, it is relatively rare.

This is why PORNBIO in its current form is a complete failure. A special notability guideline ought to be a useful, non-controversial tool that editors can use to quickly determine whether or not a topic is likely to have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. PORNBIO does not work. A SNG that encourages the creation of large numbers of articles that fail the GNG is a failed and useless guideline. It must be deprecated by generalist editors until rewritten in a tighter form so that articles that meet the special notability guideline also meet the general notability guideline the vast majority of the time, with sufficient research.

This disclaimer should not be necessary but I will make it anyway: I have no moral objection to pornography, and have watched and enjoyed porn myself over many years. I consider myself neither a big fan nor an opponent of porn. I am a generalist editor. I want this encyclopedia to have plenty of well referenced articles about notable porn topics. I oppose the presence of non-compliant BLPs of porn performers, locksmiths, plastic surgeons and kitchen remodeling contractors. Hold all people to similar standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is the core problem of conflating the guideline notability with the core content policy verifiability.  WP:BLP is not really a problem, as it has support from the external force of law, and there has never been an AfD closed citing WP:DEL9.

Notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  This is true for (1) the requirement in the lede that the topic be "worthy of notice", (2) the General Notability Guideline, and (3) notability whose verification comes from an SNG.  So for articles whose notability is identified from (1), (2), and (3); which, according to WP:V, contain 100% verifiable material?  All have the same standard at WP:V.  So notability is not the problem here.  It is not exactly a secret that enforcement of WP:V lags behind WP:DEL7 and WP:BLP.  This is where we should be directing our attention, and I'm not suggesting that it is an easy problem.  How can we improve support for WP:V?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Cullen, I don't know why you addressed all that to me, but the issue I have is where you stated that I ''[have] an overly narrow definition of what an independent source is, derived from a narrow reading of a brief FAQ page which is neither a policy nor a guideline." Not only is that inaccurate, but what FAQ page are you even referring to? Now, as what Malik hinted at above, these deletion discussions would be better if they were being created by neutral editors, but instead they're usually being created by porn deletionists. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Erpert, I addressed you because I was responding to the comments above that you addressed to me. The FAQ page that I mentioned is the same one that you mentioned, namely WP:ARTICLE which is neither a policy nor a guideline, but is listed in the "Wikipedia FAQ" category right at the bottom. I have participated in several thousand AfD debates and have significantly expanded about a hundred articles I found there, saving every one. You can find a list of them on my user page. I am not a "deletionist", but rather an editor who wants to keep articles on notable topics and delete those on non-notable topics. A large majority of the porn BLPs I see at AfD are about performers who are either not notable or borderline notable, in my opinion, so I do not see any evidence of abuse by those who nominate them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Unscintillating, you are of course correct that Verifiability is a core content policy which applies to articles meeting either the GNG or a well-written, useful SNG. That core content policy says that we must "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A porn industry trade publication reporting on awards given at a ceremony operated by that publication is most certainly not a third party source, and such publications, as I demonstrated above, do not have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. PORNBIO, to a large extent, is based on citing sources about awards won that fail the very clear policy requirements described in WP:V. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - "Are there any good sources that counter this assessment of the porn industry trade press?" Yea, and they are the one's that you didn't try to intentionally cherry-pick from. Here's what The New York Times actually has to say about AVN and it's related award ceremony: "Every January, the least pretentious city in America hosts the Annual AVN Awards. The AVN stands for Adult Video News, which is sort of the Variety of the US porn industry." and "Last year, there were 711 million rentals of hard-core sex films, according to Adult Video News, an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records. It even has its own film awards — modeled after the Oscars." and "Instead, the Adult Entertainment Expo will take place Jan. 18 to 21, culminating on its last day with an awards show known as the Oscars of the business, the AVN Awards."

Here's what the WikiProject page here actually has to say about AVN: "A reliable source for adult industry news and movie reviews, though it does not indicate when an article is a press release. In addition, their porn star profiles are often copied from other sites and cannot be treated as reliable." I've removed plenty of supposed citations from pornography-related articles that have tried to used AVN porn star profiles, which aren't reliable. AVN itself though is obviously reliable as a one of the most prominent trade magazines in the adult film industry.

Also, I've read plenty of fashion magazines in my time (including Vogue), and it seemed to me that many of them had at least "80 percent ads" in their total page count. I doubt though that many of them aren't considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, especially on the models that they profile & write articles about. One, of course, can try to go & "discredit" AVN (and some of the other adult film industry trade magazines) at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but that's already been tried (and failed) in the past.

BTW, Mia Khalifa never won any adult film industry awards in her apparently very short adult film career, so there's no way that "such an award could trigger" anything in her case at all. Guy1890 (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me, Guy1890. Mia Khalifa is notable because of the quality and number of the reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to her, not because she won an industry insider backslapping award. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You unfortunately, actually never had any relevant points to make here at all. BTW, the current PORNBIO inclusion guideline covers a lot more than just winners of awards. I think we're done here... Guy1890 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I am done when I decide that I am done, Guy1890. I am thoroughly familiar with the complete content of PORNBIO, and am pleased at the trend toward insisting that porn biographies must comply with our policies and guidelines. That is a really positive trend. Thank you so much for your kind words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You really are getting into battling territory with that last comment there, Cullen. You might want to chill out. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• I want to be really clear here that this particular discussion has no bearing on the outcome of the discussion on the policy page. Its tainted by the pinging of everyone who opposed the change and is clearly started to muddy the waters around that discussion. However that discussion closes is the policy you will get and what-ever you decide within your walled garden wikiproject is going to have as much relevance as a bag of hot air. Now as you were, you can go back to dismissing anyone who takes a different position then yourselves. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Overwatch and pornography merge?

Seeing as the discussion just keeps dying down, I figured I might as well ask for some input here about the merge discussion of Overwatch and pornography. See Talk:Overwatch (video game) for details. ~Mable (chat) 13:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability of pornography-related awards (not ceremonies)

With what appears to be a number of articles by adult film actors and actresses being the subject of AfDs in the last couple of weeks despite their having won awards, there have been arguments from editors on either side of the issue about whether or not certain award wins are considered notable enough for the actors to pass PORNBIO. Rather than editors clouding up AfDs with these arguments without linking to a neutral discussion (I stopped using the term "centralized consensus" because it sounds too similar to "centralized discussion", which I didn't realize even existed until last week), I think it's best to start one here—better yet, a recent one, as the last discussion appears to have been a straw poll back in 2012 (which I didn't participate in, btw). But rather than another straw poll, I think editors should abide by WP:DEM and give neutral arguments as to why a certain award should or shouldn't be considered notable. And to keep things objective, anyone is welcome to post any award for discussion; whether an article exists for it or not. (SN: In case anyone is wondering, I am not a member of this WikiProject; I simply enjoy the subject of it.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

For starters...

XRCO

XRCO Award for Orgasmic Analist

• Weak oppose. Neutral. Initially I wasn't sure that an award that celebrates getting it from behind is enough to establish notability, but considering Rebecca's comment below about how long the award has been around, I have upgraded my !vote. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We must comply with the core content policy Verifiability in any article and that policy requires use of reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. That means we cannot use XRCO itself as a source since it is not third-party, nor use any porn industry trade publication since they are not reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you're missing the point because your rationale doesn't mention the actual award, which is what is being discussed here. But for the record...

1. XRCOawards.com indeed can be used as a source for winners of XRCO awards (Grammy.com can be used for winners of Grammy Awards, billboard.com can be used for winners of Billboard Music Awards, etc.).
2. I really don't understand how you can still say that porn industry-related sources aren't independent or reliable (and WP:V doesn't state this either; nor does WP:RS, for that matter). Would you please link to a neutral discussion where such a consensus was met? (Frankly, I'm coming to the conclusion that you have a different definition of "independent" than Wikipedia has.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The notion that XRCO is an independent (third party) source regarding the XRCO awards is absurd on the face of it. Truly independent sources regularly cover the Grammy and Billboard Awards but not the XRCO awards. If they didn't, then winning them would not contribute to a winner's notability. WP:V and WP:BLP require the highest quality sources. The porn wikiproject page acknowledges the problems with porn industry sources, which do not have any established reputation for accuracy or fact checking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say XRCOawards.com isn't independent; I was rebutting how you said that it isn't a reliable source at all. But the thing is, you're still not mentioning the actual award; you're mentioning the award ceremony and whether or not independent (by your definition) sourcing can be found for it. Can you just give your !vote on the award, please? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support 1. Every single XRCO Orgasmic Analist recipient has either won, or been nominated for AVN's Female Performer of the Year award. AVN Female Performer of the Year nominees and winners are by far the most notable, famous, and popular porn stars. 2. No reasonable argument has been made against Orgasmic Analist, just people mocking the category's name. It is not silly at all for a person in the porn industry who is known for their anal sex performances to be rewarded for them at a porn awards show. 3. XRCO's Orgasmic Analist is a 16 year old award, it is clearly considered important if they've had it this long. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca1990, will you please explain how the sourcing for anyone winning this award complies the requirement in our core content policy Verifiability which says that we must "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Sources for these awards are neither third party nor do they have such a reputation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• The "Orgasmic Analist" award catgeory at the XRCO Awards is a niche award category and therefore not at all a major adult industry award. FWIW, I developed a preliminary listing of what I personally considered major, well-known and significant industry awards categories and ceremonies around-about the last time that PORNBIO was modified: here

If the XRCO Awards can't be "trusted" to report accurately who won the awards at their own award ceremony, then who can? Consider that a rhetorical question please. BTW, the Los Angeles Times and several books have covered the XRCO Awards pretty extensively in the past. Guy1890 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, so "Unsung Siren" shall be more important than the best Anal Performer in the Year? Considering the constantly increasing (and already big) anal domination, I can't follow your thoughts. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support Rebecca already made a good explanation. I will add the following from another view:
• In general, there is no higher quality award than the XRCO Award in that industry. XRCO makes no promotion (other than AVN), makes only 5 nominations per category (other than AVN), is not influenced by porn producers but only voted by acknowledged porn journalists (who are XRCO members which is not so easy to reach), only lets attend porn insiders at the show (no promotion again) and gives nominated performers the unique possibility to control who has voted for whom in order to achieve the transparency which the early awards from the 70's and 80's never had. Although being in no way promotional and held quite closed from the media, the XRCO Awards are considered the 2nd highest honour a pornographic actor could get for the above reasons, only the AVN Awards (with much less quality) being higher.
• They are pretty much like the opposite of the AVN Awards and have different categories, which are not as inflated as AVN's and therefore can be taken more serious in my opinion. That's why I think that an XRCO Award generally means a lot. They also often have different winners than AVN and XBIZ and e. g. have more male categories, as well, which is again a sign of more respectability and seriousness. Given the quality of the XRCO Awards, they're generally a big sign of notability in each category, especially one for the best Anal Performance, as this sexual practice is clearly a girnomous part of the industry. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Shemale porn → transsexual pornography

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 8#I think these terms should have redirects, I have created tranny porn and t-girl porn. The term shemale porn currently redirects to shemale, but the discussion about retargeting it to transsexual pornography as well hasn't not be resolved. Senator2029 “Talk” 06:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Shemale porn redirect discussion

There is a redirect discussion for Shemale porn. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 23#Shemale porn. You can add your opinion over there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother with the above. The discussion was SNOW-closed. Guy1890 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation

Hello everyone. Firstly, I am not a member of this WikiProject (not yet, at least) but I am quite interested in the subject. As for my observation – I must admit that I am quite puzzled with all these (recent and not so recent) deletions of porn star articles. I can understand the ratio behind some deletions (lack of notability, only nominations without any awards won, etc) but it still looks bad to me, especially when it comes to stars like Audrey Bitoni, Madison Ivy, Sarah Vandella, Nicole Aniston... I mean, who is next? Nina Hartley, Holly Sampson? (sorry, I just had to add a bit of irony here) --Sundostund (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI

There's an ongoing discussion about the future of the Infobox adult biography template located here. Guy1890 (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The discussion has been renamed and is now located here. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Renamed once again. Now the link is here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category: articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page. 74.5.221.14 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This kind of recent activity seems to be getting out of hand...

Articles like this one under consideration here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for Best New Starlet have unfortunately been undergoing some slow-motion edit warring over the photo content in them. Guy1890 (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean? That article's edit history doesn't show any evidence of edit-warring. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, the edit warring has been "slow motion" (I don't know that there have been any 3RR violations at all, but I'm not expert in that area) over a long while from mostly a few months back. In this article here, the edits in question happened in April-May of this year. Many of these types of what are basically list articles on adult film industry awards have been heavily edited back & forth by a few editors over the images in them...how large they should be, what kind of images, and whether there should be images in them at all. I've posted a number of messages on their talk pages (like on this one here) that have gone unheeded. It not just the above article in question, it's many of them over a protracted period of time. Guy1890 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If my time machine were working, I would go back four or five months in the past to help keep an eye on it. It looks like both the warring parties moved on after May 12. If there are articles where more eyes would be helpful today, please let other editors know. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that the article that I originally highlighed above (that's still currently at AfD) needs some help today. Besides the senseless editing back-and-forth over photos in these type of award (list) articles, it's pretty obvious to me that what's been going on here for at least a few weeks is an effort by some editors to delete as many award-related articles as possible in order to further justify deleting other articles that refer to the recpients of those very same awards. What's also been going on (with apparently little notice) in recent weeks/months are articles for recipients of industry Hall of Fame inductions being summarily re-directed (usually without discussion) to the Hall of Fame articles themselves. Heck, there's apparently even a current Hall of Fame inductee's article that's up at AfD right now. Also, even recently-created redirects are apparently going to be up for challenge soon. Guy1890 (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I can understand your general concern. Your complain seems to be about current presence of absurd deletion discussions. However, what does this all – I admit that I have been involved in the restoring of photos – have to do with edits that happened months ago? What you wrote in your first pragraph sounded as if there would be an edit-war regarding the AfDs going on. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• There are unfortunately continuing efforts to "trim" (gut is more like it) a slew of pornography-related articles using what appear to me to be flimsy "justifications" that go beyond established Wikipedia policy. What's been going on recently at UK Adult Film and Television Awards is a pretty good example of this...to start out with anyways. Guy1890 (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You appear to be dealing with a half-human, half-bot experiment that resulted from the mating of S--- and H--- W---. If I were in your place, I would start an RfC at a central place, perhaps at WT:What Wikipedia is not (which is the policy to which both DIRECTORY and INDISCRIMINATE redirect). Good luck. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You can add Vivid Superhero to the list as well. Guy1890 (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Now there's an attempt to gut even more articles (like Gang bang pornography) by one of the "usual suspects". Guy1890 (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Megan Rain

Is this an active WikiProject? If so, hi all, Megan Rain was recently created again. It had previously been deleted pursuant to an AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Rain. So the question is whether or not the subject's notability is properly established per WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. The article says that she won the 2016 Spank Bank awards, but it's unclear if that's a major industry award. I seem to recall the last time the article was created, a number of tongue-in-cheek awards (pun intended) were cited from the same source, stuff like "Best Display of Twerking on a Hoverboard".

Secondary to the above, is the Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD.com) sufficient as a reliable source per WP:RS and WP:UGC? IMDb itself is not considered reliable because it's largely user-contributed. I don't know where IAFD gets its data, but I do notice a "submit corrections" link on this page. That seems like it encourages user contributions. Anyway, the site is being used to support birthdate and birthplace information, which could be a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY if it is not a reputable site. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It is in no way whatsoever "unclear" that the "Spank Bank Award" is not a "major industry award". (It's not a well-known and snd significant award, as required by PORNBIO, either, unsurprisingly). It is, according to the cited source, given out by a single non-notable blogger. It is obviously not major, and it is no more an "industry award" than the Wolfowitz Award for The Year's Best Cheez Doodles is a food industry award. I don't even think things that exist only in the minds and cyberspace of whoever is "giving" them out can accurately be termed awards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Thanks for the response. Your chain of negatives threw me for a loop (no way whatsoever unclear not) but I eventually got your drift. Looks like the article's been deleted anyway, but I figured I'd get some other input. Thanks much, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I think the Spank Bank awards are real (i.e., not a hoax), but as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote, they are not considered significant industry awards. IAFD is user-submitted and should be considered as (un)reliable as IMDb, but unfortunately there are editors who persist in using both as if they were reliable sources. For an excellent source of information (in my opinion) about the use of IMDb on Wikipedia, see WP:EL/Perennial websites#IMDb; I think what it says applies just as well to IAFD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• IAFD is not at all solely "user-generated content" and is pretty much a reliable source for basic biographic info, as they apparently get most (if not all) of that kind of info directly from the producers of adult content that need to verify the identity of their performers (so as to not use underage talent, etc.). The only place that I've ever seen any mention of the Spank Bank Awards is on IAFD under the (possibly unreliable) "Awards" tab in their performer profiles. In order to meet the letter of PORNBIO, an award ceremony has to not only be notable (under Wikipedia's inclusion standards) but "well-known" within the adult film industry. IMDb is pretty much only reliable for their filmographies. Guy1890 (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, Guy1890, can you cite an example outside this WikiProject -- such as a discussion at RS/N or an AfD -- that concluded that IAFD is reliable? As far as the source of its content, see its FAQ, where readers are invited to send in biographical data. It may be a reliable source for the existence of a film or a career in pornography, but that's about it. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Unless there's some way to distinguish between content verified by IAFD and content submitted by users, I'd be disinclined to automatically assume IAFD as reliable. With IMDb, the general rule is that it is unsuitable as a reference, though WikiProject Film does seem flexible about this when a film article has a clear indication that the credits were verified through the WGA or some such guild. See The Dark Knight (2008) where "Cast (in credits order) verified as complete" appears, vs. Juno (2008), which has no such assurance. Although we are also talking about porn here, so I don't know what would be a reliable source. I'd probably be more likely to look the other way on non-controversial stuff like film appearances, but biographical detail seems really dicey to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• "can you cite an example outside this WikiProject -- such as a discussion at RS/N or an AfD -- that concluded that IAFD is reliable?" Yes, I can...see here. I've also participated in plenty of past AfDs in this genre, and I can't remember any off the top of my head that hinged solely on the idea of IAFD being a reliable source or not, since it's basically just a database of adult films and who has appeared in them. I think it's also fair pretty fair to say that "Malik" and I have been consistent in our past (pretty much opposite) opinions as it relates to IAFD's usefulness as a source on Wikipedia. The reality is that IAFD has a "team of editors" that exercises editorial control over what's posted on that site...in IAFD's own words: "If it's submitted by a fan of the performer and the working editor trusts the submitter, it gets listed. If it's published by someone else, it might get added -- we are skeptical of user generated sites since anyone can submit anything to them regardless of accuracy and then it becomes 'fact'. Otherwise, no data." It's not like just anyone can get anything posted as a "fact" on IAFD. I also basically agree with IAFD that they are "the leading authority on adult films and the people who star in them" and that they successfully "compile factual information about adult films and, by extension, the performers who appear in them." I also agree with their policy on the real names of adult film performers: "The exception to this rule is when it comes to real names. We're not interested in linking your real name to your porn name, so if your real name appears on the site, we will remove it (assuming we know what your real name is). However, if your real name appeared on a boxcover due to a mix up in the Art Department, there's little we can do about that." Birth names in any Wikipedia BLP need the absolute best sourcing that we can find, or we should leave that kind of info out of our articles.

I have no interest in going round-and-round about IMDB in this forum, except to note that the "Cast (in credits order) verified as complete" for Juno appears the same to me as it does for the other film mentioned above. Virtually no one is going to be deemed as notable on Wikipedia based solely on sources cited to either IAFD or IMDb. Guy1890 (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, do you believe that a discussion at RS/N (a) in which no conclusion was reached, (b) in which the only editor who commented wrote that IAFD "is probably not reliable in general due to its user generated content nature", and (c) in which the only support for using IAFD came from you, citing this WikiProject, is a discussion that concluded IAFD is a reliable source? You may think you're fooling me, but you're only fooling yourself. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• I figured out what happened at Juno--my fault. When you look at the main page it says "Cast overview, first billed only", but when you expand the cast list, it does indicate it's been verified. So, bad research on my part. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, since we've already been over the false claim that IAFD has only "user generated content", yes...that is indeed a discussion from RS/N concluding that IAFD is a reliable source for "how many & which adult films (a) subject ... was in, which is not controversial at all" and "for simple biographical data due to their past rigorous use of industry declarations that are used during the production of film content in the adult industry." Ask and you shall receive... Guy1890 (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

That discussion concluded nothing of the kind; a low-participation discussion where opinions are equally divided does not "conclude" the the last-posted argument is correct. That's ridiculous. It's easy to establish that IAFD information is poorly verified; it's built on a self-published site and dependent on users for verification. It says so. Its summary information is often absurd -- it double counts videos released in two different versions (eg, anything rereleased after footage of an underage performer is removed); it counts almost any release recycling old footage as a new release so long as there's some new footage, and it is primarily dependent on users to identify recycled clips. Note, for example, the listing for Bambi Woods, a notorious performer from the late 1970s, who performed in only two porn films. IAFD reports five films, counting two cases of recycled footage and one "special edition" of Debbie Does Dallas. It also counts "DVD bonus" scenes -- clips promoting other releases -- as discrete performances. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 AVN Hall of Fame inductees

The inductees have been announced. (Link) Several of them have had their articles deleted on here Monique Alexander, Cassidey, Sara Jay, and Tory Lane. Since they pass PORNBIO now there should be a discussion at least if their articles get restored, recreated or left deleted as is. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Since a couple of these were nominated at AfD in the recent past basically by Single-Purpose Accounts, they can probably be recreated relatively easily. Cassidey likely was at a borderline GNG-pass as well in the recent past, so that article could also be recreated pretty easily as well. Another issue though is that a fair amount of adult performers that have been inducted long-ago into the AVN Hall of Fame (and, in some cases, multiple Halls of Fame) have had their relatively short Wikipedia articles recently, unilaterally re-directed to those Hall of Fame articles without any discussion. Guy1890 (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought Monique, Cassidey and probably Tory would be relatively uncontroversial. There has seemingly been a lot of conflict over Sara Jay over the years though. Although with her now being in the AVN HOF, I don't have any objections for her having an article now. It looks like the process of having an article fully restored isn't an easy one, especially since there are some user″s who don't think there should be any porn related articles on Wikipedia, who would probably vote against it for that reason, so it might be easier just to recreate them. Which is a shame since all but Sarah Jay's lasted a long time before being deleted. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I was wrong about it being uncontroversial. It looks like there with have to be a deletion review in order to get their pages back up. Cassidey and Monique probably have the best chance of having their articles restored because of mainstream appearances and coverage. Tory and Sara haven't had much of either (Tory's arrest coverage alone probably won't be enough). So if anyone is familiar with the deletion review process and cares enough to give it a shot, please do so. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Ok I've gotten Tory Lane restored so please feel free to add some content and make the page vibrant with useful and (reliable) content! Holanthony (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• I have restored Monique Alexander; please add this updated information. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • • I have been trying to recreate Sara Jay but to no success. Draft:Sara_Jay. Can you help? Ilovepitts (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability for Sssh.com?

Can someone review the notability flag for Sssh.com? The site gets just as much if not more industry and mainstream than other similar sites. I am finding a lot of pages (pornography related and not) being flagged for neutrality, COI and notability by people who clearly haven't done even a basic cursory search on the subject matter and then left for months and even years. Jeffery Thomas 16:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Which is the correct term?

Is Transsexual pornography or Transgender pornography the same thing or two seperate things. If Transgender pornography is the same as Transsexual pornography should the term be redirected. ? Dwanyewest (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As they are 2 different things I would assume the pornography related to it would be 2 different things. Both pages should have a small note explaining the difference. Jeffery Thomas 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Help stop Hitomi Tanaka's page from being deleted

I have used multiple sources on Hitomi Tanaka, including TV Tokyo, her photobook and ISBN, The New York Daily News, Playboy and Score. I realize there may have been issues in the past with her article, but if she doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG, no one does. It really seems to me that the issue may be more because she is a porn star, than the issue of the article being bad.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello ChiefWahooMcDonalds. The article will almost certainly be deleted, and there's probably nothing you can do about it, so save a copy to your e-mail account or hard drive. Previous community discussions, in both 2015 and 2016, concluded that Tanaka doesn't satisfy the requirements for an encyclopedia article. Our policy allows any administrator to delete your new article if she or he considers it sufficiently similar to either of the deleted versions (which you can't see, but they can). See WP:G4.

If you'd like to write an encyclopedia article about Tanaka, here's what you need to do. First, familiarize yourself with the relevant "notability" guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:BIO (especially WP:PORNBIO). If, after reading those guidelines carefully, you think something has happened recently that makes Tanaka qualify for an encyclopedia article when she didn't in the past, you need to start a discussion at WP:Deletion review. There are instructions at that page.

To increase your likelihood of success at Deletion review, don't bother starting a discussion if you only want to argue against the arguments that were made last year or in 2015. Only start a discussion if there is new information that was not available at that time that indicates she now satisfies the notability requirements. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

She appeared in The New York Daily News, Playboy, The Score Group, TV Tokyo and SkyPerfectTV!. I sourced her 430+ film appearances and her photobook. How do these sources not make her WP:GNG? There are thousands of pages on this site that do not meet those standards. She also won an AVN award which was cited, and meets one of the criteria for PORNBIO, so that argument is completely scrapped that she is not fitting. I really want to hear a good argument. If this is not satisfactory, there is no way another porn star is ever added on this website again.

The article should look similar. It is about the same topic and the same person. A Ron Jeremy article is going to look similar to a another pornstar article. However, it is going to look completely different from a Lance Armstrong article, because it's a different format and a different subject. How is the article supposed to look different while sourcing every single line and without breaking any rules? Please explain it to me.

Whatever was done in the past is irrelevant. I could write the worst article ever on someone and do it in the same format, and it would ruin any future articles on that person forever. If Hitomi was featured everywhere in the media tomorrow, it wouldn't make a difference, because we would base it off an article that only admins have seen and it would follow the same format, that so far no one, except this admin has come out about seeing. ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As an editor with more than a decade of experience, including experience as an administrator, I was telling you what you need to do to save your article. You can argue with the rules if you'd like, or you can save your article. It's up to you. It doesn't make any difference to me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please answer some of my concerns and questions towards this?ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Issues with mainstream coverage

Let's face it. No porn star or anything involving porn is ever going to be covered by a "credible source" like a newspaper or news program based on someone's porn career. The mainstream media cannot cover it due to FCC standards with language and graphic sexual content. They can't have the person on, they can't talk about any of the acts and they can't show pictures due to the content. The only way a pornstar is ever going to be considered covered by a major source here is under the following conditions: 1)They took part in something outside of porn, 2) They died, 3) They caught AIDS or had another catastrophic event happen to them. Porn need to be separate from this standard, because very very few people are ever going to meet that, while tons of people who did things in porn are going to be forgotten. I've seen porn mentioned a handful of times in the news over the years, yet it remains in the most popular websites and everyone I know has probably seen it at some point. This gets even more tricky when we start talking about foreign stars. My Hitomi Tanaka is set-up to be deleted and it's truly not reasonable. Why would someone like CNN ever cover a Japanese porn star? I feel that porn is no different than any other medium, just more lewd. There's hundreds of pro wrestlers that have articles on here as well as tons of actors who have done very little, while someone like Hitomi Tanaka or others, are just not seen as relevant. It's just nonsensical.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I see it kind of like a performer that only appeared in music videos (and was never part of a band), or somebody who wrote for a newspaper and never achieved anything of note other than that. Some porn actors do achieve more. At least one sang a Top 10 record. Others performed in an amazingly high number of movies. Several achieved outside fame by being under 18 when they started in porn. One even is famous for being the mother of a famous mainstream actress. Not sure what is noteworthy of being a porn performer. Do we have a page for every performer that had a spoken line in regular movies? Mushrom (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What is noteworthy about being a musician, actor or athlete?

If porn actors have to get in based on non-porn happenings, then it makes no difference whether they did porn or not, because it porn effectively does not matter. Why should a musician be able to get in based on their music if a porn actor can't get in based on porn? Porn is no different than music, sports, acting or any other genre of entertainment. It is its own code, it has its viewers, it has its famous people and its no names.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

ChiefWahooMcDonalds, your own post pretty much sank your argument. Things relating to porn do not get equal mainstream coverage. That means the world has a bias against granting Notability to anything porn related. That's not a Wikipedia issue, that's an issue out in the world. That is basically an acknowledgement that this is a Right Great Wrongs case. A generic actor and a porn actor aren't going to have a level playing field for notability. If you do have an adequate claim to notability and some moral-crusaders go on the attack, I will happily help ward them off. Alsee (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

AVN Awards now have to be non-fan voted?

User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has now ruled that any AVN awards have to be non-fan voted in or they are not elgible for articlesChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

1. ChiefWahooMcDonalds is currently blocked, with a checkuser in progress. In case that block is lifted:
2. Please include a link to the relevant discussion where said "ruling" happened.
3. When mentioning users, please include a user link like this: User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. That will generate a notification for them. It's considered polite to notify users when discussing them.
4. Regarding the value of fan-voted awards.... ugh. It might be worth looking into it, but I believe that general fan-voted awards are generally viewed skeptically around here. They may warrant reduced (or zero) weight unless it has heavyweight backing. Alsee (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

3D and 2D films

In order to promote 3D porno we have to start somewhere and the Japanese population is very hi-tech. So I made a concentrated effort to compile a list of Japanese pornographic actresses that appear in titles released as both 3D film _and_ 2D film, and also is found in wikidata.org:

• Anna Anjo - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4750536
• Aya Saito - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11500273
• Chihiro Akino - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11595865
• Hitomi Kitagawa - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9114432
• Kaori Maeda - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10898957
• Nao Mizuki - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9301058
• Reon Otowa - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11664330
• Risa Mizuki - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17230415
• Ryoko Murakami - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11522839
• Ryo Makoto - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2540053

--Gstree (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be here "to promote" anything. A lot of what you seem to be doing recently is creating things that have little chance of staying on Wikipedia over the long-term. Might I suggest that you get some experience improving existing Wikipedia articles first before creating large numbers of things that will likely only get deleted? Guy1890 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Who says we should promote anything? Why? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz and Guy1890: I mean that there are little data about 3D movies on Wikipedia in general, there is only 2 titles about 3D porn for example. --Gstree (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

By its nature, coverage in Wikipedia typically lags—we're supposed to rely on what reliable sources say about a subject, so we can't write an encyclopedia article until reliable sources have taken notice of something and started to write about it. Unless you can cite a lot of reliable sources about 3-D movies, you won't find a lot of information about 3-D movies on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)