Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can I help

Hello I would like to help with the to do list.

I have edited the Daily Sport pages to try and make them even more NPOV.

When my four days expires I was going to add to the Internet Pornography article in the history section looking at Gopher anf FTP porn the Rimm BBS article, the CDA, Senator Exon, Playboy, Hustler and Clublove. Then on to chat rooms cybersex and webcam chat.

I was also going to add to the amateur porn pages - mentioning people like Matilda in Australia who has been photgraphing many amateur models and maybe cuckold porn. Pornhistorian (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I recommend you first become familiar with policies such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:Biographies of living persons, and WP:Neutral point of view to avoid having any of your work reverted. Welcome to the project. Epbr123 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}}

I've noticed that an increasing number of person-based infoboxes are being merged into {{Infobox person}}, with modules being created that add wikiproject-based fields. Any thoughts about incorporating our two infoboxes into it? --wL<speak·check> 07:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pornography articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Pornography articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Gokkun

A dispute has arisen on this article about whether including an illustration is appropiate. Project members are invited to visit the talk page to contribute to the debate. Exxolon (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The only real hurdle I see to this is that we do not have a source discussing the glass. Glass, saucers, and other containers are often featured. However, I can't find RS saying this. Someone is using The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English at Bukkake I assume that it is a perfectly fine offline source but cannot get a copy of it so I don't want to make a controversial change without being 100% confident. Does anyone have any ideas on sources for the use of cups and other containers? Online searches show that it is common but we need RS.Cptnono (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Starr

I just saw a documentary about the porn industry and they had a bit on someone named Jesse Starr. But I can't find any information about him here? The documentary looked legit and it said that he was a celebrity of sorts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.147.250 (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering - What was the documentary that featured Jesse? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.168.160 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content

All 3 parts of the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content are now available. Please read and contribute to the discussion on the talk pages. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Abortion rates among pornography workers?

Would anybody know whether porn workers have a higher than average rate (i.e.41%) of abortion. Has any research being done into the subject that I can be directed to? Has any polls being done into attitudes among those who work in the industry?Skreen (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The privacy rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act would make these types of estimation very difficult. You can always ask the performers but people are likely to lie about these issues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging PORNBIO into ENTERTAINER

Currently, there is discussion about merging pornographic models/actors into WP:ENTERTAINER. I don't really have any issue with this but figure the rest of the wikiproject should chime in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Pink Pineapple

FYI Pink Pineapple has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Green Bunny

FYI Green Bunny has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tawnee Stone

FYI Tawnee Stone has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

porn parodies

I have no idea if anyone is still active on this project, but I would like to inform you all of a discussion regarding inclusion of porn parodies in articles. it can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Inclusion_of_porn_film_in_Sarah_Palin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm (talk • contribs) 08:26, 26 December 2010

John T. Bone

I just tagged the John T. Bone article for some very strong BLP issues. I removed a couple of the more egregious parts that were clear violations of BLP and/or NPOV rules, but the article still needs work. Also, it includes Bone's real name, and I'm not sure that's been released by a reliable source. If somebody who knows a bit more about JTB than I do can dig up some actual verifiable sources for the article, or drop the content that can't be verified, that would be great. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

LSMODELCLUB

Hello, I want to add a redirection from This article to this one which contains same information, as well as more completed. What should I do so it could be possible?? Lsmodelclub (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Lolicon

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article following its nomination for reassessment. You are being notified as your project banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Lolicon/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Image discussion

There is an image discussion on the talk page of Creampie (sexual act). Input welcome. --JN466 13:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rickmer/Little Caprice

Last year the article Little Caprice, about an adult performer, was userified to User:Rickmer/Little Caprice rather than CSD it (I guess in the hope it can be saved). Rickmer was subsequently indefed as a sock, leaving this as a poorly sourced BLP which is unlikely to get any attention where it is. Does this person meet the relevant standards of notability? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. She appears to fail WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding Porn Wikileaks

I think a resoultion needs to be sorted regarding Porn Wikileaks one way or the other. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the controversy? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

see Talk:Porn Wikileaks Dwanyewest (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Playboy Playmates AfDs

As you may have noticed, there has been a rash of Playboy Playmate nominations including several Playmates of the Years by a single user. This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user. The wikiproject was mentioned several times. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

They appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 28. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to infobox adult biography

Please see Template talk:Infobox adult biography#Proposal to remove "measurements" from template. Just FYI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Kelly Wearstler

Regarding the removal of the Playmate infobox and Playmates of 'Year' template in the Kelly Wearstler article, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kelly Wearstler. --Dismas|(talk) 16:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO

Since it applies to a large number of the articles of interest to this project, I thought someone should point out that a recent edit did away with this particular notability requirement in favor of more general indicators. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Suggested changes to "entertainers" section. J04n(talk page) 01:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of articles just for being pornographic in nature?

Dear editors of this Wikiproject. I would like to call the attention of a speedy deletion of an article I recently created about pornographic actress Cody Lane. Pornographic articles have never been of my interest in Wikipedia, but I found interesting the fact she is currently arrested for possession of drugs. This actress had a prolific short career of over 100 films. I have noticed that there are a big collection of articles regarding pornographic actors no more notable than for being adult stars. I would like to know how this conflict of definition of the concept of "notable" is considered in Wikipedia when it comes down to pornographic actors. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, this article was restored by an admin. After I left him a message in his userpage. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a tabloid. You may find the arrest interesting but no reputable newspapers reported on it. Further you violated the policy on biographies of living people by relying on crap sources and public records. You should not have bypassed the block on creating any article about Cody Lane by posting it under another name even if it may be her real name. If you were unable to create one under Cody Lane, there was a good reason for it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability_(people) has the criteria for inclusion of pornographic actors and models in Wikipedia.Dan88888 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Article

I'm not sure how useful this is as a source, but I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox adult biography

Okay folks, with the template at it stands right now, the differences between this template and the generic Infobox person, there's only a couple of fields difference between them:

  • gender is present in Adult. That was because the Adult Biography used to have code that handled Measurements and gender was used to handle some routing. If anything, I think this can probably be culled.
  • alias in Adult is called other_names in Person. If anything the alias field should be renamed to other_names
  • eye_color, hair_color and skin_color are present in Adult. Eye and hair colour can be changed these days readily and skin colour can be inferred by ethnicity. Maybe these can be removed?
  • spelling in Adult, which is used to support the above fields.
  • number_of_films present in Adult.

Given how few differences remain, I propose that we do away with the Adult Biography template altogether and handle them with the generic Infobox:Person template. As a point of interest, Infobox Actor was similarly folded into the generic Person some months back so there is precedent. Tabercil (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I've lately been thinking about how pointless the eye and hair color fields are anyway. And skin color borders on the subjective anyway. Just where does white end and brown begin? Is number of films really important? Dismas|(talk) 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me a lot of time and effort could be saved by merging with either the AfD or the PROD templates. Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal. Epbr123 (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is XrentDVD a RS for the adult industry?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#XrentDVD about whether XRentDVD is appropriately being used as a reliable source. Input from WP:PORN contributors would be appreciated. Brmull (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Village pump

There are ongoing discussions and proposals regarding this wikiproject at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should underage editors be topic banned from articles in the WikiProject Pornography topic area? Cambalachero (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicole Sheridan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicole Sheridan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Sheridan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. David in DC (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change List of Playboy Playmates of... to simple lists

I recently found List of Playboy Playmates of 1955 and was surprised by the number of policies and guidelines it violates. I proposed changing it to a simple list and was directed here. A quick search of the discussions here has me quite confused as to why these lists came to be in their current state e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_5#Playboy_Playmates_per_RFC. Can someone point me to other relevant discussions, or summarize them here?

My proposal is to make them into list articles for each decade - listing the names with references, a few images, and perhaps footnotes to help with clarifications such as disambiguation. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

After a bit more looking at what has been done, I think it would be better to simply merge them into the respective decade list (eg List of people in Playboy 1953–1959). --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how the same amount of info could be put into the table at that decade list. Some entries have a bit of info in them. Just slightly under the threshold of being able to be an independent article in their own right. I don't support the change. Maybe you could explain what policies and guidelines the yearly lists violate? Dismas|(talk) 02:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SOAP to start, which means most of the relevant policies and guidelines listed with NOTDIRECTORY and SOAP.
Let's not waste time. Please provide links to past discussions on how the articles became lists of mini-articles. Obviously, it's an attempt to retain info from deleted articles.
As for retaining information, the information doesn't appear encyclopedic, but some of the sources should be kept that verify the inclusion in the list. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought I was being rather civil about this. I don't know why you're taking an insistent tone... But if you want research, fine: 1, 2, and 3.
And for the record, I still don't see what your problem with them is. Yes, I've read WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SOAP. Dismas|(talk) 02:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Best WP:FOC and not read anything into tone.
Thanks for the links.
I see no discussion of the relevant policies etc.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY#1
WP:SOAP - because of the lack of notability of some of the entries, the lack of independent and reliable sources, it comes across as something that Playboy should publish, rather than something belonging in an encyclopedia. Of course, BLP applies as well.--Ronz (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

PORNBIO

There's an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Pornographic actors/actresses. Please comment. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I came across this article for Nina Loves Girls 2 (the first film in the series is being discussed at AFD) and it seems that aside from a nomination in the AVN awards, it is not notable. So my question is: for this and all other porn videos, is a nomination for an AVN award enough for a video to be deemed notable? Also, I feel like the category it is nominated for could make a difference. This one was for best educational release among 5 other videos. There are well over 100 categories. HotshotCleaner (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Films with nominations are not presumed notable under WP:NFILMS. They must have won a significant award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. So if I come across non notable vids, is the procedure to do a PROD or can it be Speedy? HotshotCleaner (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
No speedies. Must be either a PROD or an AfD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. I noticed that this user, Erpert, the creator of the article in question, has created several other porn related articles and the majority of them don't seem to be notable. Maybe someone from this WikiProject should send him a message with some advice/suggestions. HotshotCleaner (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd say that about Erpert necessarily. Their list includes many notable people per WP:PORNBIO. Remember, Morbidthoughts said that the film wasn't notable due to the nomination but people aren't films. Several nominations make a person notable per WP:PORNBIO. And the five or six biography articles I just looked at that Erpert created seem to live up to that standard at least. Dismas|(talk) 20:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That's true; I shouldn't have said "majority". I guess I was only looking at the articles of videos that didn't seem notable. I saw a few that were only nominated for an award like the one discussed at the top of the thread, and most are based on references to the website that made them. HotshotCleaner (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess I should have looked closer at his talk page because it turns out someone gave him that suggestion right before I suggested sending it to him. HotshotCleaner (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Greetings, pornography fans! I'm an active participant in deletion sorting. You already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, but I'm wondering if there would be any objection to creating a page on DELSORT for pornography-related topics. There seem to be a fair few porn actress bios and so on going through AfD. It may be duplication of effort to do deletion sorting on them, but currently, it is rather disjointed when we have both deletion sorting categories for some topics and WikiProject deletion lists for others. Thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion...

Be bold and do it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ilovethebeach.com

Dear volunters of wikpedia

I am asking for you help on a project of mine. I am trying to post a page about a pronographic website called Ilovethebeach.com but my administrator Godo Dodo belives that I do not have enough news article sources for the page to be put on the main page so I will like to ask for your help on this subject and if anyone has a reliable source on which they can give to me I will be most thankful. To se the my work just please go to my User talk page :

User:Paulmcanders/Ilovethebeach.com

Thank you all so much.

Paulmcanders (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A Free Ride

This article is a GA nominee. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 14:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Free HighBeam accounts

The internet research database HighBeam Research has 1000 free accounts available. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits on any Wikipedia. Here's the link to the project page: Wikipedia:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Feel free to sign up to help improve your work on this project's articles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Project's scope and WP:BLP issues

I don't think - regardless of the stated scope of this project - that {{WikiProject Pornography}} banners should be added to biographies of living persons that have not been involved in pornography in the more narrow sense of the word (i.e. "hardcore" pornography; e.g. Playboy's playmates). Since there is a substantial difference between erotica and pornography, associating a living person with pornography creates a WP:BLP problem. GregorB (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Tightening of PORNBIO

Based on several recent AfDs, there has been discussion about tightening PORNBIO (again). This time there is a seeming consensus on a proposal I made on how to do this. However, feedback from the wikiproject pornography is still important. [1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed a split of WP:PORNBIO into a new page in WT:notability (people)#Splitting section about porn entertainers? and then an addition of tagging it as "failed". To improve consensus, please join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Article help: Kelly Shore

A new editor seems to be attempting to flesh out the Kelly Shore article. It will be several days until I can take a look through the references and see what's good and what's not. Can anyone take a look through it sooner than that? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 21:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Carrigan AFD

Actor/director page up for AFD, deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan (3rd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What about Sara Jay

Surely Sara Jay qualifies for an article now she received 5 Urban X Nominations in 2010 and won a 2009 Urbaan X award and a Hall of Fame Urban X Award.[2][3] and was nominated for the 2011 Best Pornstar Website. [4]Dwanyewest (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sara Jay also got nominated for the 2011 Best Pornstar Website.[5] Dwanyewest (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams - centerfold 1992

Hi, folks. I happened by this article and I think there's some discrimination going on with attacks on it. There are unreasonable challenges to properly cited information and some discussion that belittles the subject and calls for deletion. I'm attempting to add to the article but I'm encountering quite a bit of resistance. Could I get some folks to review the history and provide opinions on the talk page? Thanks. There also a current AfD that you can locate from the article page. Pkeets (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Attention to edit request please

There is an edit request at Virtual Global Taskforce#Edit request on 13 August 2012 regarding replacing the term "child pornography" with "child exploitation" or "indecent images of children." I am ill-prepared to judge the merits of their argument, and so I ask here that someone please take a look at the request. BigNate37(T) 17:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Unknown American model

Dear WikiProject! I have a question: who is this african-american model from the Playboy? 1 Doncsecztalk 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, it's Renee Tenison. That is if I'm looking at the right image. In order to see it, I had to click on something in another language which I think means that I'm over the age of consent and legally allowed to see such images. Dismas|(talk) 20:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the same. Thank you! Doncsecztalk 06:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion sorting question

I've listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, but I'm not too sure if there are other topical related deletion sorting type places to list this sort of deletion discussion? If so, feel free to do so, or let me know so I can be aware of that in the future going forwards. Thanks and have a great day! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Billy Brandt

Hi folks, there is an active discussion regarding Billy Brandt at this WP:RSN noticeboard, your participation would be helpful. Thanks... Zad68 15:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are these ladies notable?

Sara Jay, has been nominated twice for AVN Awards in 2 seperate years should she. get a wiki page and has been inducted in the Urban X Awards hall of fame. Deauxma, has been nominated MILF of the year twice is notable and these other ladies I am unsure Holly Halston, Ana Mancini and Sarina Valentina. Can anyone give me feedback plesae?Dwanyewest (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Which AVN Awards has Sara Jay been nominated for, as I can only find one? Deauxma does pass WP:PORNBIO, but not Holly Halston, Ana Mancini or Sarina Valentina, as far as I can see. Epbr123 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sara Jay got nominated for best website in 2011 and 2012 AVN awards that got to make her notable right?Dwanyewest (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Is MILF of the year notable?

Deauxma (porn star) has been nominated MILF of the year by AVN Awards in 2 seperate years does this make her notable for a wiki article? Also aswebsite of the year on 2 seperate for occassions for Sara JayDwanyewest (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:PORNBIO. I doubt that nominations for website of the year will convince anybody that Sara Jay satisfies the criteria, but Deauxma might qualify. More important than the AVN nominations, do you have any other sources with which to write an article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
A MILF of the year win would meet the letter of PORNBIO, but do two nominations satisfy PORNBIO's "nominated for such an award several times" test? • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

MyFreeCams.com

I made an article, but it needs boxes and pics, and I don't want to start messing with things beyond my scope of handling. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Transexual porn should have an article

Does anyone object if make an article about Transexual pornography I feel there is enough. evidence from Salon.com , Physcology Today, Xbiz, fleshbot and Huffington post to justify an article.Dwanyewest (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of userfied article of interest

Greetings WikiProject Porno.

Recently I picked up a userfication of a company that deals in pornography and decided to bring it to the attention of this WikiProject. Are any of you familiar with Palcomix? if so you are welcome to make additions to the userpage draft. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Tyciol

Why is User:Tyciol still listed as an "active member"? He may well be editing here using a different account, but that one has been blocked since April 2010 October 2009. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Take him off the list then. Guy1890 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's an AfD that should be Challenged IMHO

Someone is actually trying to have the XBIZ Award article deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XBIZ Award. No, this isn't an April Fool's joke...ugh...feel free to add your comments. Guy1890 (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SIGNY_award. It looks like, at best, this article should be replaced by a new one describing the newer Bondage Awards. Comments welcomed. Guy1890 (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

An RFC that may be relevant to your interests

Should a porn actress be excluded from an image gallery on the basis she is a porn actress: Talk:List_of_vegetarians#RfC:_Images_of_women? Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Kira Reed

This is a heads up to you guys because I don't know what to do about it. Anonymous editors keeps adding to the article Kira Reed that she is a former hard-core porn star. The additions are quickly reverted, usually by one of a number of single-purpose accounts. I have collected what evidence I can about this at Talk:Kira Reed#Hard-core porn actress?. What I can't decide is whether this information deserves to be in the article. You people (presumably) have more experience in this area, so maybe you can decide. Note however that if you add this information to the article then you will need to keep the article on your watchlists, otherwise it will be removed. (Frankly, I am getting tired of policing this article to prevent it from being sanitized.) HairyWombat 04:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with editing Wikipedia articles of mainstream or softcore porn performers myself. The only experience that I've had so far with SPAs are SPAs that were sockpuppets.
Ms. Reed appears to be a former softcore actress that maybe is trying to turn over a new leaf and go more mainstream these days. She appears to be a former web/TV adult "reporter" that appeared in at least one hardcore film with her then husband Dan Anderson.
Maybe you can ask an administrator to "protect" the Kira Reed article from being edited by IP address Wikipedia users? Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The folks trying to sanitize this article have struck again. I've added several academic refs. They were reverted as "Libelous". They're not so I rolled back the reverts. Please watch this page. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. There are a number of single purpose accounts doing this. I reported them in December 2012 for sockpuppetry (here), but nothing was done. (Also, KiraFan has appeared since then.) Only one of the four accounts is anonymous, so protection against these would not help. HairyWombat 22:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem that I've noticed recently with Wikipedia Sockpuppet investigations is that it appears that you have to spoon feed the clerks/admins there in order to get any real action. They want to see edit "diffs" that show different users deleting or adding the exact same (or at least similar) text content to the same set of specific articles. It seems pretty clear that there are at least 4 different Wikipedia accounts that are acting together to "protect" and/or promote a favorable version of the Robert Lorsch and Kira Reed (or Kira Reed-related) articles on Wikipedia. If those accounts aren't all socks of one another, then maybe there's a case to be made that they have a close connection with the subjects of these Wikipedia articles & therefore shouldn't be editing them. I dunno what else to suggest, since I'm not a veteran of the various Wikipedia administrative boards. There's a lot of drama that goes on in those forums. Guy1890 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem with making a case that the four accounts have a close connection with Kira Reed and/or Robert Lorsch is that it is impossible to prove. I have already placed warnings on the four talk pages pointing the editors to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, but these had no effect (other than to spawn new single-purpose accounts). If I get sufficiently pissed off then I will propose the article Kira Reed for deletion (for lack of notability described at Talk:Kira Reed#Notability). HairyWombat 05:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Please consider protection before deletion. In my view, deletion would enable a heckler's veto. I've added three refs to books from academia to the article. In my view these, plus the pre-existing reliable sources, push us well past the bar for notability. Please note, I'd never heard of Kira Reed before entering this fray, but I've now read enough to judge that she's notable, want to defend WP:N from COI sanitizers. I hate it when rule-breakers get their way. David in DC (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on WikiProject Hentai

NOTE, At WT:WikiProject Anime and manga, there is an RFC concerning the fate of WP:WikiProject Hentai -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla DeVille

  • What do people think of this version of the article? All the COI hype was removed, as well as the non-notable award noms (incidentally, Beeblebrox userfied it so it could indeed be cleaned up before being moved back to mainspace). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Much better. But do we have to have the parenthesis in this sentence? "She was raised by her mother and stepfather (she has no knowledge of her birth father)" Couldn't it be worked into the sentence or made its own? Other then that it is much better when I first found the matter at COIN and could be moved back. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed that sentence completely, and now I'm going to ask Beeblebrox if he will restore the article's talk page. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said in the related AfD, none of the sources used in the biographical paragraphs is even close to be reliable, and as I pointed there DeVille is not reliable (it has been demonstrated!) about what she says about herself, we cannot have a full bio based on what she says in her own website or in interviews with obscure websites. The biographical contents should be better sourced (with reliable secondary sources) or removed. --Cavarrone (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The subject may not exactly be reliable, but generally people are reliable sources about their own life. Phillip Roth is another example of such a case. I do not think it is a BLP concern (self-disclosed in the interview) and the material is not unduly self-serving. It could be run by the BLP board if you want, but I doubt it is a concern given the circumstances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As we are not talking in general but about a specific subject that is proven to be unreliable, and given that this article was nominated for deletion and then deleted a few days ago on these basis (and not just for the COI), YES, it is a valid concern given the circumstances. Cavarrone (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Wait; she wasn't proven to be unreliable (as you stated yourself); the information her husband added about her was proven to be unreliable (which has since been removed). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The unreliable informations her husband added were not unsourced, they were actually sourced by her words/her website, the same kind of sources we are actually judging. And the nominator's rationale as well as several comments pointed about the sourcing issues as a reason for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I never disagreed about the sourcing (well, some of it, anyway). But even if the article had no body, she still enough award noms listed to pass WP:PORNBIO. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Better no body than inaccurate informations.Cavarrone (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I was just giving an example. What about what's listed in the article is inaccurate? In some cases, WP:SELF does apply; for example, we can't state a person is bisexual unless s/he actually says "hey, I'm bisexual". Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was WP:ABOUTSELF, which if the interpretation is right, as long as it is not self-serving or exceptional it should be included as their is no doubt to its authenticity. For a very narrow spectrum of claims, I believe it is okay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You're exactly right; in fact, I didn't even know that guideline existed. If there are no objections within twenty-four hours, I'll move the article back into mainspace. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This article is inaccurate and most of the information is out of date. You didn't correct any inaccuracies or poor sources, but simply reverted back to your original text, removing some non-COI verifiable facts and sources. "She entered the adult film industry in 1998-1999 after discovering how much money one of her girlfriends made by running a webcam site; DeVille then created her own webcam site and subsequently used the profits to create a porn site." and "DeVille has had sex with both men and women but she mainly has sex with women on her website." are both incorrect statements. Plus, most of your text is based on a 9 year old interview that came from a user-generated message board [6]. Stewiedv (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
We go by what is verifiable and that sometimes doesn't mean 'truth'. Seeing as this is a raised issue, I'd run it by BLP board. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I can appreciate that ChrisGualtieri, but that doesn't excuse an editor from using poor paraphrasing that changes meaning, or refusing to utilize other verifiable sources simply because they don't like who suggested them. I agree that this could be a possible a BLP board issue as well. Stewiedv (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall ever saying I don't like you. And if you think sourced content is still unreliable, remove it and explain why you removed it. In other words, don't merely say it's unreliable; say why it's unreliable. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 03:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I've already posted my reasons why they are unreliable in this (and other) discussions, and have refrained from editing this document at all due to COI and our ongoing disagreement. Stewiedv (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
But the thing is, you're the only one who seems to think the article as it is now has unreliable information (I wonder if you'd have a problem if anyone else reverted back to that version). And the only reason the disagreement is ongoing is because you won't let it go. You can't keep trying to turn every comment I make into an attack against you. You took a break to cool off, you said, but then you came back and resumed the argument. That's not what you're supposed to do.

Now, returning to the topic...does anyone else have any problems with the way the article looks right now? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

First, nothing I said above had anything to do with our disagreement, but are actual facts. Your article is incorrect, out of date and poorly sourced. Second, you're the one who won't let it go as I've asked you several times to leave me out of your posts, yet you continue to post false accusations and petty comments about me, including while I took a break and tried to let the discussion die. Even here, where I gave specific examples of mistakes within the document, you tried to make it about our personal disagreement instead of about the article itself. You refuse to take feedback from me, or anyone else, but continue to go around in circles with false statements and canvasing attacks. Third, as suggested by other contributers, I'll be taking this matter to the BLPN. Stewiedv (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You don't get it; what is "incorrect, out-of-date and poorly sourced"? You claim to have given examples but you never actually did. And I refuse to take feedback from anyone else? How about this? I think for right now it's best to use Cavarrone's suggestion and just remove everything but the award noms because you just refuse to put this to rest. Also, you can only use the I'm-new-so-I-didn't-know-any-better excuse for so long before I can just assume WP:IDHT (not to mention WP:POT). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 23:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm really starting to question your motives, because your comments are getting more ridiculous and you only seem to be trying to cause more strife. I listed two specific examples above, included copies of your text, as well as specifically stated that the 2005 message board interview you used for most of your article was an outdated and poor source (you yourself stated that Internet forums were not reliable sources in your COIN comments). I also corrected those sentences and added additional sources in my original edits of the article, which you ignored and reverted. That doesn't include all of the specific examples of problems with your writings and sources that I listed in the COIN discussion and other discussions with you. You ignore every single valid point against you in every argument you start, then simply try to provoke and add more policy links. I'm not going to keep repeating myself for your amusement. In regards to the ONE change you made based on another contributor's feedback, I'd made a similar change in my edits weeks ago that you also rejected and reverted back. As for me supposedly using the "the I'm-new-so-I-didn't-know-any-better excuse", the only time I mentioned that I was unaware of the rules was in reference to my very first COI promotional edits, nothing else. I have admitted my fault with that promotional text and have done everything required to resolve the COI issue. What blame have you taken and exactly what have you done to make any part of this situation better? Even after you stated on the ANI board yesterday that you were done with our disagreement (which you've also said in other posts previously), you couldn't keep this discussion to issues with the document itself, but continue to hide problems with your work and your actions by posting misinformation and regurgitating policy rhetoric (most of which you yourself are breaking). The bottom line is that you have done nothing to improve this document. Stewiedv (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

New article: Urofsky v. Gilmore

I've created the new article, Urofsky v. Gilmore. Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page, Talk:Urofsky v. Gilmore. — Cirt (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nude photography

Nude photography has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Nude photography -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Even though this article was rated as "high importance" by your project, one of the editors keeps deleting your banner from this article. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I have been editing Nude photography based upon an opening section defining the topic as fine art. The title change merely clarifies that. If the topic now includes porn, then I have been wasting my time.FigureArtist (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Rather then a rename, I will create a new article.FigureArtist (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox adult biography

I have made a few suggestions regarding what parameters should be included, please comment; Template_talk:Infobox_adult_biography#Relevant_parameters_to_be_included, thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines on photos

I'm not a Project member, just a casual editor but I'm really surprised that you don't post more extensive guidelines on what photos are appropriate for the Wikipedia website, such as whether photos should be cropped, what is allowed and not allowed. It seems like there could be a lot of conflict with the larger Wikipedia community and some readers if there aren't any standards (which I still think there must be, right?).

As for where I stand, I believe in the right photo for the right forum...there are photos that clearly would be okay on some other websites that would push the envelope at Wikipedia. There aren't bad photos but there are bad places for any particular photo and Wikipedia might be a bad place for some explicit photographs. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Wikipedia is not censored. You haven't given any expamples above, so it's hard to comment further on your concerns. Guy1890 (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no moral standard we apply to photos, besides legality. If something pornographic furthers a reader's understanding then it meets the criteria for inclusion provided the copyright pans out, while a far less explicit photo may not meet the inclusion criteria if its function is merely decorative. Betty Logan (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review of Elexis Monroe

Image deletion

  • From the deletion discussion for the image, the reuse permissions granted at the FEMEN website may be insufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. A free-use replacement image may exist or may be taken. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: Keeley Hazell biography being linked to pornography portal.

There is currently a discussion, here, on whether Keeley Hazell ought to have a link to the pornography portal.--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: The discussion above (which is currently going nowhere fast) is really about whether or not Page 3 girls are engaging in softcore pornography, which is an issue that I'm not especially familiar with. Guy1890 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation

This appears to have closed in 2011. I've done some cleaning and tidying, but the article really needs a thorough going-over to move everything relevant into the past tense, fix dead external links, and to distinguish between AIM Healthcare's setting up of the current industry HIV testing regime, and what is currently running at present. -- The Anome (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

PORNBIO

Does PORNBIO "lack consensus" and "is invalid", is it "obsolete and invalid" and "lacks consensus (as shown in an extensive discussion last year)", and does PORNBIO "not have consensus" & is it "a fundamentally invalid pseudo-guideline that has no authority at all"? I'd like to make it clear that I'm not asking for anyone to comment on these issues in any of these threads (heck, one of them has been closed for a while!), but it's become increasingly apparent to me over time that PORNBIO has basically no standing at all at DRV. More disturbingly, the above kind of thinking is slowly starting to creep into AfDs as well. I've been a member of this Project since around-about March of this year, and almost that whole time I've thought that PORNBIO was one (but not the only) defining guide for whether or not a pornography-related article should exist on Wikipedia. I don't think that I was wrong in that regard, but I ask here to confirm whether I was or not. I don't agree with everything that's currently in PORNBIO, but, since I was never a part of any discussion that has shaped it over the years, I thought that I should check here to see if I've been mistaken. Guy1890 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: FYI...all of the above-referenced discussions are now closed, which is neither here nor there IMO.
On another matter, does anyone watch this page at all, or am I talking to myself here? Guy1890 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
According to this, 138 editors watch this page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Classification of revenge porn

The revenge porn article has undergone substantial changes, updates and improvements since someone from Project Pornography last gave it a classification. It would be great if someone could give the article another look-through to see whether it warrants an improved classification.

Thanks! Amphiggins (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I'm running into a problem with pornographic actors. For non-pornography acting (film, television, voice, stage, video game, etc.), the categories are actresses but with porn it's "female actor". It doesn't fit with the way all other acting categories are organized. So, for example, Meryl Streep would be listed as an Category:American film actresses and Category:American stage actresses but for a porn actress, it's Category:American female pornographic film actors. This is really awkward language and I really think this WikiProject should adjust its categories so that female actors are identified as actresses. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Couples porn

Is couples porn a legitimate genre to write about thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The only places that I've seen this type of film mentioned is on Reality pornography & Feminist pornography. It's apparently not even on the List of pornographic sub-genres. Guy1890 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Community comments requested

Since there have been a few accusations of a lack of comments, from project members of this group, here in this discussion: DRV treatment of porn-related content, I ask that you comment there as you see fit with whatever your opinion(s) are on the topic(s) there.

There appear to be around-about two dozen "active" members of this Project...with a smaller number of editors appearing to be actually, routinely active editing Pornography Project-related articles. Obviously, no one is required to comment in the above discussion if they don't want to, for whatever reason. Thanks... Guy1890 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a (well-needed IMHO) developing discussion about the PORNBIO standard here. Your comments are welcomed. Guy1890 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
In case you're interested, there is yet-again another discussion ongoing here surrounding (in part) the future of the PORNBIO standard. Your comments are welcomed. Guy1890 (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
In the continuing saga of PORNBIO, there is now an RfC ongoing that is discussing, among other issues:
  • "Should the subsection for notable Pornographic actors and models be changed to remove the criteria for award nominations?"
  • "whether some of the industry awards used to indicate notability are worthy of use whether awarded or merely nominated"
  • "whether some purely industry sources can be considered reliable for the purpose of determining notability"
  • "whether a similar removal of nominations as part of the ANYBIO criteria might be warranted"
Your comments, as always, are welcome. Guy1890 (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Well out of all of the discussions and a bunch of edit warring, we got the answer to the first question. I support the removal decision now that it's done; I just wish it wasn't inconsistent with ANYBIO. What happened was just a natural backlash against people constantly testing the limits of the guideline to include another article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I said all through the recent discussions over PORNBIO that if the community supported a total removal of nominations from PORNBIO, then so be it...and that's (not surprisingly, given the way the recent processes played out) what ended up happening. It has appeared to me for quite some time that the PORNBIO guideline existed in the first place to be, at least in part, more restrictive and/or specific than ANYBIO...so I'm not sweating the current differences there at all. Trying to "keep" articles at AfD by trying to use the ANYBIO standard now isn't going to work IMO.
It also appears to me that the recent dust-ups over PORNBIO were mostly a continuation (and dissatisfaction really) by a lot of editors with the previous processes that were used to try & change PORNBIO. I don't think that the (recent?) attempts by some other editors to add significantly more pornography-related articles (sometimes with shaky citation sources at best) to Wikipedia helped things out either. In fact, I think it might have made it easier for many that have had an axe to grind with this project here (for likely a long time) to do what they might have wanted to do for a long time now. For some reason, there also appear to be a significantly lower number of editors on Wikipedia that seem to give a damn about pornography-related content as well. I'm just glad that it's over...for now I guess.
It might help out a tad in the future if we'd try to use the press release citation for sources that are obviously press releases in articles. Who knows...good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Here's an interesting take on how to "improve" an article on the XRCO Awards. Guy1890 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

BLPN notice

The following BLPN discussion is related to pornography/WP issues: WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Talk:List of Asian pornographic actors. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What the thread that's mentioned above is really about is whether red-linked names should be on a particular list on Wikipedia, which is about as minor an issue as one can get IMHO. It also seems to be, at least originally in part, about a bunch of Wikipedia editors that can't seem to (or maybe want to) even attempt to get along with one another on Wikipedia. There really shouldn't be any red links on Wikipedia unless the user adding the red link has a real sense that the linked term will eventually end up with it's own, stand-alone Wikipedia article...that's pretty much the standard that's in use by the relevant Wikipedia Project in question. Whether a red-linked particular name has any resemblance to some other person that also doesn't have their own Wikipedia article as of yet is irrelevant. Having red links in Project space to indicate that an article may be created is a well-established practice and that's also what I've already suggested be done in this case here. The Internet Adult Film Database is as fine a source as any to confirm that a particular person was an adult film performer at some point, since its filmographies are considered reliable by this Project here. Guy1890 (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I normally recuse myself from these discussions but the IAFD should be treated like IMDB in terms of not being considered a reliable source in that it's a tertiary source. Filmographies are usually generated from movie reviews from the popular adult review sites and company listings and of course mistakes can be made in this process. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I've very rarely come across what appeared to be obvious errors in the IAFD filmographies. They've always appeared to be as good, if not better than, the IMDb filmographies, which can be used for really any kind of performer. Guy1890 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Porn is a BLP nightmare

Never seen so many BLP violations in my life as in many porn articles. As a project we should be aiming to have zero BLP violations in the pornography articles. Most disturbing are the lists full of the names of living people with no sources, many dont even have an article while others are linked to articles on living people who dont have any connection to porn♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been rare that I've seen an agenda-driven editor delete completely valid links & information from articles merely because they didn't feel like doing the work that was needed to improve an article's sources. You really need to slow down your operations in this regard my friend. They're going to end up getting you in trouble... Guy1890 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding, yes? Or perhaps you are just unaware of Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES. I have never heard of any editor getting in trouble for enforcing BLP sources. And far from slowing down let me assure you I am being extremely patient and slow, I am merely removing the names of people without articles or reliable sources, that will never get me into trouble of itself. If I wanted to enforce BLP to the letter by removing all unsourced material in the porn articles about likely living people I am 100% confident the community would support me in that and censure those trying to prevent that. We take BLP very seriously on wikipeida, its one of the 5 pilars. There are whole wodges of unsourced information that BLP actually requires be removed when it relates to living people. Someone following me today also found some bad links, ie linking to articles of the same name as some porn star and yet the living person linked to had no connection to porn? I trust you agree that ALL these bad links need removing as a matter of great urgency? Are you willing to get on board with this project or why are you here? I am here to improve our articles on porn by ensuring that all the porn articles are at least as compliant to BLP as List of performers in gay porn films, which itself may not be perfect of course. And just making the edits I am is inspiring others to follow suit, fixing BLP violations, fixing bad links, reffing better with reliable sources, ie the real work of creating a good encyclopedia so I am baffled as to your comments, especially the ones about getting into trouble for enforcing BLP on porn articles when lets face it many poeople would be outraged and horrified to be wrongly associated with porn production, ie mentioning someone as being involved in porn is by nature contentious and therefore very much what BLP sources is talking about. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Squeak, there's a difference between "removing a red link" and "deleting the entry" altogether. You've been deleting content completely and ignoring the fact that the person has still won the award. Stop being so lazy and help out with checking the sources and adding citations rather than undoing untold hours of work by other editors because you're blindly quoting and supposedly adhering to "BLP policy". If nothing else, just tag the content, let other Editors know about it, and then give us time to fix. Your methods up to now have been shameful. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I cant ignore what isnt verifiable. I havent removed any reliably sourced information (that I am aware of) and I have merely picked on the red links cos they are even more likely to be BLP vios. I am well within my rights to remove any unsourced info that relates to a living person regardless of whether that person has an article or not, that is why I am baffled as to why Guy thinks I am moving too quickly. telling me I am lazy is not helpful or worthy of a response, Scalhotrod when I am working very hard to start clearing out the BLP violations. BLP does not recommend tagging information about living people that isnt reliably sourced and I think when it concerns living people involved in porn this is not an acceptable enforcement of BLP. That editors have puts lots of hours into adding information about living people which is not reliably sourced isnt a good argument either. I am more concerned about the people being mentioned and whether what is said about them is verifiable. If you disagree you can of course ask what people think at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎ but calling BLP enforcement shameful wont make you may friends over there. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding "SqueakBox". You can't just cite BLP and then do just about whatever that you feel like to a particular Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a collective, long-term endeavor, and it's waaaay easier to delete content than to spend the time searching for content or adding sources for existing content. What you've done recently is not only removed red links...you've removed the underlying names as well and you've attempted to remove valid link sources for future inline citations from articles that would prove that a large portion of the content that you've removed from a bunch of articles is, in fact, valid. In some other cases, merely clicking on a Wiki-linked name in one article would yield just about as many sources as one could want for the first article in question, but you apparently don't like doing that either. I'm sorry, but starting discussions on various talk pages, and then trying to point to another discussion board when those discussions don't go your way isn't the way that things work here on Wikipedia.
"Someone following me today also found some bad links, ie linking to articles of the same name as some porn star and yet the living person linked to had no connection to porn?" Yea, and there's basically an entire Project that does many, many similar kinds of edits all the time, without, of course, attempting to invoke any unneeded drama over it.
"I am here to improve our articles on porn by ensuring that all the porn articles are at least as compliant to BLP" You are obviously here, in part, to delete as much content from pornography-related articles as possible, which is not what this or any other project needs.
"when lets face it many poeople would be outraged and horrified to be wrongly associated with porn production, ie mentioning someone as being involved in porn is by nature contentious" Thanks for clearing stating your biases up front...not that they weren't obvious already...ugh...
"I cant ignore what isnt verifiable." On the contrary, you've already willfullly avoided the obvious that at least some of what you've recently removed is, in fact, entirely & sometimes easily verifiable if one would merely do the work required. Guy1890 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
When I say verifiable I am talking about inline citations for the mention of every single likely living person in every single porn article; whether this information would be easy to verify or not is of no interest to me. If you think you can stop me removing unsourced material about living people from any and all porn articles you are completely wrong. Of course I am removing the underlying names, these underlying names are what is unsourced. The blue links names without reliable sources will have to go at some point soon as well because every single likely living person mentioned in every single porn article needs to have an inline citation of a reliable source to verify that they work or are involved in porn or that name must be removed from that article. Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES is very clear and I am not willing to discuss the rights and wrong of making all the porn articles BLP compliant but am fully confident that the wikipedia community will back me every time as the policy is so clear on this point. Which is why you are best off trying to reliably source as much currently unsourced info about likely living people as you can as quickly as you can, focussing on what you yourself describe as "entirely & sometimes easily verifiable if one would merely do the work required" as if a living person isnt sourced reliably their name has not got a long future on wikipedia. Please dont ask me to verify or source the info myself as I am not willing to do so and nor does BLP in any way demand that I do so, it demands that I remove unsourced information, there is nothing in the policy about having to try to source info oneself before deleting it. You could though try to change the current policies in this respect. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"whether this information would be easy to verify or not is of no interest to me." We fully understand that you just don't feel like doing what is frequently very easy to do...formatting inline citations from readily-available content that is sometimes easily available from inter-linked articles on Wikipedia. You simply don't want to do the work. You instead insist that the work be done by others...others that must drop whatever they are doing to address your concerns first, above everything & anything else. I say again...citing BLP is not a "get out of jail free card" on Wikipedia.
"Which is why you are best off trying to reliably source as much currently unsourced info about likely living people as you can as quickly as you can"...yea, we'll get right on those hundreds & hundreds of articles out there that need better sourcing...it should be all done within a few days...not...give us all a break here please.
"Please dont ask me to verify or source the info myself as I am not willing to do so" Again, you're restating the obvious here, which is really going to end up biting you in the end my friend. Don't continue down the path that you are on right now, please. Guy1890 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I could equally say that you dont want to do the often tricky, tedious task of removing BLP violations. And I work here as a volunteer so I am nobody's employee, certainly not yours. You havent explained clearly why I should desists from enforcing BLP on porn articles or why such an approach will come back to bite me. And yes, everyone must indeed drop their concerns not for me but for BLP and for wikipedia itself which enforces and believes in and gives great value on BLP, but mostly for the living people the policy is there to protect in the real world today, or of course accept mass deletions of unsourced names of living people from all porn articles which contain them. Of course nothing will be deleted from the history so people can work from the history to restore names of deleted likely living people having found and formatted a reliably sourced inline citation; it may take years but BLP demands we delete the living people's names today and then restore them as we can while it does not allow for BLP violations to go unchecked until editors can inline cite them reliably. You keep telling me "how things work here" without seeming to understand how things work here very well yourself. You also seem to me to not understand how strongly the wider community of dedicated editors feel about BLP violations especially when living people are are mentioned as working in porn with no reliable source to justify that claim. I may have come late to the porn articles, as you so charmingly put it, but I have been on wikipedia a good many years and worked with BLP for many years and so I have as much right as the next editor to demand we follow current practices on Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES in all porn articles and you should thank me I wasnt mroe brutal today as BLP certainly empowers me or any editor to be. TBH I am wonder why you are on this wikiproject if you dont support making all porn articles BLP compliant asap. I simply cant get my head around that. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"I could equally say that you dont want to do the often tricky, tedious task of removing BLP violations"...and you'd be wrong, but what else is new eh? "And I work here as a volunteer so I am nobody's employee, certainly not yours"...and no one else here is your employee either. "it may take years"...but you want it done within a few days, and you simply don't understand how unreasonable that kind of demand is at all, especially when you have been told again & again that many of the citations that you'd like to see in the first place are staring you right in the face. "if you dont support making all porn articles BLP compliant" Once again, when have I ever said that? It was never. Guy1890 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Porn bias

I've been waiting for someone to actually openly state this and User:SqueakBox finally did it with this comment, "ie mentioning someone as being involved in porn is by nature contentious".

No, Squeak, it is not. Your assertion involves a moral assumption and opinion that you need to take responsibility for making. Its also in my opinion a fairly narrow minded and Puritanical opinion that is demonstrative of conservative American and English attitudes towards the subject of human sexuality. Attitudes, norms, and societal standards regarding humans sexuality vary around the world and so does the same towards pornography which has existed for thousands of years. But yet you feel its OK under the guise of "BLP Policy" to push your Point of View throughout these articles and erase the efforts of "who knows how many" Editors.

Please stop. If there are problems, point them out, and let others who are less encumbered fix them. I recommend that you peruse this project, Countering systemic bias, as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolute and utter bullshit. No responsible editor -- no editor that I can recall except the now-long-banned Benjiboi and the contents of his sock drawer -- has denied that claims of involvement in the porn/erotica industry qualify as contentious under BLP policy and require careful scrutiny and solid, reliable sourcing. Even in the heated debates over the many proposals to delete

List of performers in gay porn films, these principles were not seriously disputed. Relatively clear, rigorous standards have been developed and if you continue to reject them your editing privileges will inevitably be limited or suspended. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

HW, so what you're saying is that the kind and type of references that are used in that list are perfectly acceptable for establishing that someone is a porn actor? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If you think enforcing our living people policy on porn shows an anti-porn bias that is your problem, you have to live with it if you want to edit these articles. And if you think porn is not a contentious area to make unsourced claims that violate Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES please open a discussion about this on the BLP talk page or perhaps at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you wanted to, but personally I think your arguments are misguided and your claim that enforcing BLP or recognising that it is a controversial area ie that many people dont want their name associated with porn, such as perhaps Tiger Woods who we most certainly incorrectly had linked to as a porn star, reveals an anti-porn bias as being not worthy of a serious response. We are here to be neutral about porn not pro or anti it and I completely deny any bias whatsoever in my editing porn articles here, taking WP:NPOV very seriously. I assumed people were here to get more reliably sourced and BLP compliant articles on porn and am disappointed if this turns out not to be so but in no way disheartened abotut he importance of the work I am doing or of my success int he long run. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Squeak, I don't need to open a discussion. It's your assertion to support and defend, not mine. You are ignoring available sources and deleting content based on your interpretation of WP policy. You have been systematically creating holes in articles that can be easily updated. You're not making Wikipedia better, you're taking pot shots at it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not ignoring any available sources, all I am doing and will continue to do is to remove unsourced material concerning presumed living people. If I accidentally remove sourced material please revert that as there is not a single name that I would not happily see restored with a reliable source. If you have any good suggestions around any holes left through my BLP enforcement editing I will happily discuss that issue in detaila nd take on board any constructive suggestions that dont impede the BLP enforcement work itself. And I would say I am being pro porn in doing what I am doing cos my aim is for wikipedia to have a much better coverage of porn than it does right now cos all the names of living people will be sourced using inline citations. If you want to simply develop unsourced lists of porn information I suggest you start up a porn wiki and of course all the unsourced info that was here is still in the history. On the other hand if you stay here I really suggest you urgently start finding reliable sources for all living people in porn articles where they dont currently have a reliable source in order to prevent me or others from deleting those names. We have loads of excellent BLP compliant articles on porn and what I want is that ALL our articles more or less meet the BLP standards of the best today, surely a pro porn agenda on wikipedia if there ever was one. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If Deauxma wins an AVN Award?

If Deauxma wins MILF of the year at the 31st AVN Awards or Bridgette B Unsung hero or Sara Jay or Sarina Valentina transsexual performer can I then create an article for them?Dwanyewest (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You should only create articles when you have enough sources to write a decent biography. Otherwise it's just wasted effort. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't waste your time on the Deauxma article, since that article has unfortunately been a lightning rod for controversy in the past at both AfD & DRV, and the "MILF Performer of the Year" award probably isn't a major enough award to justify a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. The "Unsung Starlet of the Year" & "Transsexual Performer of the Year" awards are likely major enough to technically pass the new PORNBIO standard, but one has to be very careful to use the very best citations that one can come across when creating any pornography-related BLP. I don't think that Sara Jay is up for any AVN Awards this year. Guy1890 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Bridgette B was deleted at AfD despite winning the Unsung Starlet award in 2012. Unless substantial reliable source coverage emerges, trying to recreate the article would be a waste of time. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

But surely been nominated twice for transsexual performer of the year is notable enough for Sarina Valentina. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely not, per WP:PORNBIO. "[The] RfC has demonstrated overwhelming consensus among experienced editors for the removal of the criteria for award nominations from the subsection for notable pornographic actors and models." (Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RfC: As regards WP:PORNBIO should the criteria for awards nominations be removed from the guideline)
Not really, it was a lot of anti-porn pedantics without much substance, but you know that, you were there. This is just your opinion of the conversation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

IAFD FAQ page & policies

Hi Folks, I noticed recently that the IAFD Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page has some interesting information. Among other things its says...

  • It's a MOVIE DATABASE and not necessarily focused on performers although it contains performer profiles.
  • When adding new movie/video titles, the editors research them first along with the performers.
  • The editors have a policy of not removing information. For example if someone is no longer doing porn and they request that their Bio be removed, they don't remove it.
  • The editors of IAFD are skeptical of "user generated" site data. (sound familiar?)

Lastly they pretty clearly lay out how the site makes money, its from banner ads and affiliate sales of videos if someone clicks a link from their site, but they don't sell anything directly other than advertising.

Anyone think this is noteworthy? If so, how can we integrate it into the article? Yes, I realize that its a primary source, but that's allowable under the right circumstances which this appears to be.

Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

New article, Porn parody

I just created this article, your inpressions and contributions are invited. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Number of films in info box

In the standard WIKIPORN info box the number of films is usually taken from IAFD and has usually included compilations. IAFD now has an option to list movies for an actor and exclude all compilations. I propose that the info box either list the number for non-compilations or give numbers with each labeled. So if an actress made 50 films and was in 20 compilations it would list 50 or it would list 50 original and 20 compilations. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've been doing this since the beginning of the year and labeling each separately plus any directorial work. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson FAR

I have nominated Jenna Jameson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the article needs work. Thank you Hariz for pointing this out! Anyone else care to join in? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Section formatting

Hi Folks, I've been using a specific format/list of sections for porn star articles I have edited that may differ from the standard BLP article format that many use. For example, I've used sections and subsections such as...

  • Template:Infobox adult biography
  • Lead
  • Career (everything, adult and otherwise)
    • Modeling - mainstream modeling
    • Adult industry - video and magazine appearances
    • Early, or,
    • Mainstream - if they have crossed over and done enough mainstream work to merit the content, ex. Jenna Jameson, Sasha Grey
    • Writing - articles, columns, and blogs
    • Advocacy - for the industry regarding health or legal issues
    • Other ventures - mostly business related such as clothing or other product lines and companies they've started
    • Appearances - mainstream such as tv shows, events, or publications either as themselves or acting
  • Awards (non table, list format)
    • Nominations
    • Wins
    • Hall of Fame
  • Personal life
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

Anyone have thoughts on this? Should we standardize on something (not necessarily this list)? Obviously PORNBIO still applies, but maybe this will help us organize information.

BTW, I purposely place the "Personal life" section towards the end so that article is focused on the person's "work". Furthermore, I'm not sure what placing content about a porn star's childhood (happy, sad, or just average), i.e. "Early life", at the beginning of the article accomplishes. Again why I place it or move towards the end of the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what's the point of listing nominations since they don't contribute to notability anymore and sometimes their sheer numbers overwhelms the article to the point that it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. [7] Also I'm not a big fan of tables, given that they don't seem to be accessible on wikipedia's mobile app. What's the point of being able to sort awards/noms in any way beyond by year? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus at all in the above-linked, 4.5-year-old discussion that indicates that award nominations shouldn't be listed in adult-film-related BLPs. As is basically said there & as I've said elsewhere before, not every single item in a Wikipedia article need be notable in order to be included in that Wikipedia article. The real issue is are there reliable sources for the information in question, especially if it is "controversial" information? Do adult-film award nominations currently "count" towards one's notability on Wikipedia? No, but who cares? I've also never been able to fully wrap my mind around how Wikipedia tables are coded. I learned enough about html coding long ago to realize that I don't want to learn any more about it myself.  ;) Guy1890 (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, scratch Nominations, I've only added "wins" to articles since the PORNBIO discussion, but I leave Nominations there when I see them. As for tables, I like the look, but was unaware of the mobile app problem, thanks Morbid... :)

As for the rest, seem OK? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem with listing nominations (or using tables either, for that matter); I mean, aren't articles for non-pornographic actors formatted that way? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem at all with listing every award and nomination, but if nominations are going to be listed, list them all or list none. I'm sure you all remember last year's spamming of porn articles with XBIZ nominations only. It doesn't matter if the award/nomination contributes to notability or not. We wouldn't remove scene-related/ensemble wins from articles, would we? I wouldn't suggest including both wins and nominations for certain people though, such as "veteran" porn stars Nina Hartley, Ginger Lynn, Julia Ann, Francesca Le, Tom Byron, Ron Jeremy, etc. because we are only able to access nominations from 2000-present through the Wayback Machine and a listing of nominations for these performers would be incomplete, so keep the performer's porn debut year in mind when editing their "Awards" section. So, it would be ok to list nominations for any performer who debuted in 2000 or later. It is also ok to list nominations for some, not all, but some performers who debuted in the late 90's. For example, lets look at Julie Meadows, who began performing in 1998. Her article includes both awards and nominations and since she was nominated for a couple of newcomer awards in 2000, it is safe to assume that she wasn't nominated for anything in 1998-1999 and that her "Awards and nominations" section is complete. Now, lets move on to the formatting of articles. Wikipedia's WP:Featured articles set a good example for how articles should look so lets take a look at some: Angelina Jolie, Reese Witherspoon, and Julianne Moore. The sections in those three articles are listed in this order: Early life, Career, Personal life, Filmography, and Awards and nominations. Sections in these articles such as "Humanitarian work", "Other projects", "Charitable work", and "Writing" are listed after "Career" and before "Personal life", so that is where sections such as "Mainstream appearances", "Other ventures", "Advocacy", etc. in porn biographies should be placed. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, all great comments, ideas, and analysis. If I understand you correctly, you are advocating for a section format like this...
  • Template:Infobox adult biography
  • Lead
  • Early life (if information is available)
  • Career (everything, adult and otherwise)
    • Modeling - mainstream modeling
    • Adult industry - video and magazine appearances
    • Mainstream - if they have crossed over and done enough mainstream work to merit the content, ex. Jenna Jameson, Sasha Grey
    • Writing - articles, columns, and blogs
    • Advocacy - for the industry regarding health or legal issues
    • Other ventures - mostly business related such as clothing or other product lines and companies they've started
    • Appearances - mainstream such as tv shows, events, or publications either as themselves or acting
  • Filmography
  • Awards (non table, list format)
    • Nominations (if appeared post-2000)
    • Wins
    • Hall of Fame
  • Personal life
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

Sound good? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Policy re: children of porn actresses?

An IP editor inserted this into the Veronica Avluv article:

"Ms Avluv is dealing with an emotional minor child that is suicidal over this listing repeated attempts to remove the info about her children have failed She is no longer in adult and wishes to put this behind her. if you cant remove the part about her children please remove this entry alltogether." Is there any precedent that would allow us to remove the reference to her children?

Also -- is an XCRO Award "well-known and signficant"? If not, I'll nominate the article for deletion, since it's the only award she's actually won. (She hasn't made any unique contributions to a specific genre, isn't an Industry Hall of Fame member, and hasn't been featured in mainstream media at all.)

Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If the article mentioned her children's names i'd cite WP:IAR to remove that and just mention that she has children, but it already doesn't mention any names (just that she has children). I can't see what the problem is with listing that broad information myself. We certainly can't delete the article just because somebody doest want it there/regrets their past, but you make a good point about her not being measured in mainstream media etc... Not too sure about the XRCO award, I mean it's clearly notable enough to have it's own wiki article, but feel free to nominate the article for deletion anyway. I'm sure the discussion for deletion will establish whether she is notable enough or not. Freikorp (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The XRCO Award win satisfies the letter of WP:PORNBIO, but MILF of the Year winners have been deleted at AfD (occasional exception). Notability is borderline. If the subject really wants the article gone, there's OTRS. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
She can follow the advice at WP:AUTOPROB. That said, I don't see the problem with just stating that she has a child. A majority of people do, so it's not really earth shattering to find out that she does as well. And we never name the child. I don't see the issue. Dismas|(talk) 00:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy replies. I'm amazed -- I've left messages on the talk pages at other Wikprojects that have gone unanswered for months. So good to experience an active Wikproject.
I don't actually know her -- I heard about this through a friend of a friend -- but I assume she would want the article deleted. If I can track her down I'll direct her to WP:AUTOPROB although I may also nominate the article for deletion. Thanks again. JSFarman (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
While the XRCO Awards are a "well-known" adult "industry award", not all specific awards given out by well-known entities are considered to be major or "significant industry awards". Also as stated above, there has been some controversy associated with the notability of winning MILF-like awards in the past at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT porn and actors may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Pornography At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis

The following individuals who are in the scope of this project are showing to be alive on the English wiki, but deceased on another language wiki:

  1. Kandi Barbour: fa:درگذشتگان ۲۰۱۲ (میلادی) / ur:2012ء کی وفیات
  2. Mamoru Watanabe: ja:2013年没
  3. Milk Ichigo: fr:Décès en 2012 / ja:2012年没 / zh:2012年逝世

Please help to find reliable sources to confirm if these individuals are alive or dead, or correct any mis-categorization on the relevant foreign-language article(s). Please see WP:LIVINGDEAD for more info and raise any issues on the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Help reviewing Draft:Cumonmy.com please

I have no idea how to advise the author of this draft on finding references. Please will members of this project pop over and offer help and advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Sarina Valentina

Should Sarina Valentina get her own wiki article she has been nominated a few times as AVN Transsexual of the year. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominations were removed as a consideration in PORNBIO a while ago. I'm not familiar off-hand with the person that you're referring to, but you're going to have to find another way through our Wikipedia notability guidelines in order to include a new article about a person like this. Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

New member

Hi. I'm a new member. I am going to create to new articles that are red-lined elsewhere: Stop Porn Culture and National Feminist Anti-Pornography Movement. Lightbreather (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Helena Karel

Hello, i'm french and i wrote Helena Karel's page. This one is proposed to be deleted. I'd like to have a little help to improve the page (my english is not good enough). Could someone tell me who i could contact ? Thank you ! Sg7438 (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI

There are some at least tangentially-related pornography discussions currently ongoing elsewhere, including a BLP RfC that deals mostly with list articles and an AN/I complaint. Guy1890 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

SOMEBODY PLEASE CONTRIBUTE ARTICLE = PARK NIMA

  1. 1 ASIAN VIDEO STAR

WITH 100 VIDEOS THANKS Joebruns52 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

substing a deleted template

WP:P*#Structure advises users to begin by substing {{Female porn biography}} on a new article. However, that template no longer exists, and the assumption that porn actors are female is, uh, heteronormative. Or possibly misandrist. Anyway, is there a more-appropriate, still-extant template recommended? betafive 16:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC on source, Golden Goddesses: 25 Legendary Women of Classic Erotic Cinema, 1968-1985

I would like to get comments regarding this book, Golden Goddesses: 25 Legendary Women of Classic Erotic Cinema, 1968-1985[1] as reviewed here.

  • Do the project members feel that is a reliable source?
  • What other comments do you have regarding this source?

References

  1. ^ Nelson, Jill C. (2012). Golden goddesses : 25 legendary women of classic erotic cinema 1968-1985. Duncan, Okla.: Bearmanor Media. ISBN 978-1593932985.

Comments

  • Support the use of its material and inclusion in related WP articles. I found the reader comments about this book promising and positive. Granted it has not been reviewed by any mainstream outlets, its a non-self published print source nonetheless. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

  • Comment The way you want to use the book seems spammish. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually I was just trying to understand the best way to use the source, but now I understand what that is. Saying that people are mentioned in it is spammy, using it as a printed source is just par for WP. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Section formatting (revisited)

From where we left off...

  • Template:Infobox adult biography
  • Lead
  • Early life (if information is available)
  • Career (everything, adult and otherwise)
    • Modeling - mainstream modeling
    • Adult industry - video and magazine appearances
    • Mainstream - if they have crossed over and done enough mainstream work to merit the content, ex. Jenna Jameson, Sasha Grey
    • Writing - articles, columns, and blogs
    • Advocacy - for the industry regarding health or legal issues
    • Other ventures - mostly business related such as clothing or other product lines and companies they've started
    • Appearances - mainstream such as tv shows, events, or publications either as themselves or acting
  • Filmography
  • Awards (non table, list format)
    • Nominations (if appeared post-2000)
    • Wins
    • Hall of Fame
  • Personal life
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

Everyone still OK with this or have any recommendations? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI again

  • This RfC is now closed, but there is still some apparent difficultly in implementing that close (if needed) in this discussion here. Commentary from members of this Project might be helpful at this time to define a best way forward. Guy1890 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template gathering assistance requested

Hi Project members (and fans), it would seem that we have a variety of templates (article and Talk page) that are in use in our articles, but we do not have them in an easy to use location. I have added some to the project page, but I'd like to ask your help in finding more. Here is what I've found so far...

Even if you just list the article that you found it in, I'm happy to compile the list and do the appropriate coding. Many thanks! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The following templates used in porn related articles are the only ones I know of:
Template:Adult entertainment awards
Template:American pornographic film studios
Template:MindGeek
Template:Girlfriends Films
  • I'll let you know if I find any others. The templates I've listed are used in articles on either award ceremonies or production companies. I don't know of any others, besides AVN/XRCO Female Performer of the Year or Penthouse Pets, which are used in performer biographies. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Becs!! :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Scalhotrod, I found another template; Template:AVN Award - Transsexual Performer of the Year. Rebecca1990 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Coolness, thank you! I need to get to work posting these in the Project page. Hey, what do you think of my expansion of the Structure section? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to broaden/rename HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry

There is a discussion, Talk:HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry#Propose broaden scope and rename that members of this project may be interested in. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Porn film awards

I would like to propose moving Pornographic film awards (which is at the very bottom on the project page) up into the Other sources section. And refer to it/give a link to it in the Structures section, to help editors decide if a person is notable. And, on that note, WP:PORNBIO says:

"Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration."

Are all the awards listed under "Pornographic film awards" (User:Epbr123/Adult award winners and nominees) significant industry awards? --Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Are all the awards listed under 'Pornographic film awards'...significant industry awards?" No, but that listing is a halfway decent place to start when trying to figure out if an adult performer might meet the PORNBIO standard. The problem with that listing is that User:Epbr123 basically doesn't edit Wikipedia anymore and that award listing hasn't been properly updated in a long while at this point. That listing also lists scene awards (which haven't counted towards PORNBIO in a long while) and award nominations (which used to count towards PORNBIO up until more recently). A lot of the listed Urban X/Urban Spice Awards haven't been successfully used to satisfy PORNBIO in more recent AfDs. I'm not sure what the listed "Score" award stuff is in reference to either.
During the last debate over updating PORNBIO, I came up with a preliminary listing of awards that I personally thought met the "well-known and significant industry award" standard, but that current listing doesn't have policy-level support for it at all. Guy1890 (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing lists

Among the current "List" articles:

  • List of African-American porn stars
  • List of Asian pornographic actors
  • List of Hispanic porn stars
  • List of British pornographic actors
  • List of female porn stars by decade

Missing, maybe?

  • List of American porn stars
  • List of Australian porn stars
  • List of male porn stars (by decade?)

Just wonderin'. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The articles List of Asian pornographic actors, List of gay pornography awards, List of British pornographic actors, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of pornographic actresses by decade, List of African-American pornographic actors, and List of pornographic sub-genres were all pretty much decimated by some anti-porn editors in recent months. Once those articles are restored, using inline citations for each name (ugh), then maybe we could consider adding more lists. IMHO, generating more list articles that are related to pornography is just going to cause more trouble than its worth at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd prefer fewer than more, but if there are going to be ethnic/nationality lists, and "female" lists... In other words, it's not a big deal to me. I'm new to the project, so I have questions, and maybe some insights, too. That's all. Lightbreather (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Though I guess that does bring up another question, why were they decimated? ... If you know. It seems like there are a heckuva lot of porn bios. Are all of these people really notable?
"why were they decimated?" Well, opinions certainly vary on that topic, but the story at the time was that listing mostly stage names of subjects that had Wikipedia articles (but no inline citation in the list article itself) written about them were "BLP violations" that needed to be removed immediately. There's some discussion about this topic in the archives of this talk page and here - with some references to other discussions that took place on other talk pages, AN/I, etc.. It was a huge & unnecessary clusterf**k IMO.
"Are all of these people really notable?" Again, that's a matter of opinion, but since PORNBIO was further tightened in recent years, there are likely a significant amount of pornography-related BLPs that don't technically meet PORNBIO and/or GNG in their current form. Guy1890 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I have mixed feelings about the industry, but I certainly understand why there is a porn project. I wouldn't want to delete someone who is truly notable, but I also don't think anyone who's ever worked in porn needs a page. It seems to me that there are an awful lot here, but I doubt I'll have the energy to check many out. I'm mostly NOT here to work on bios, though I happen to be working on one now that I find interesting. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Awards section necessary for porn bio

This edit[8] on the Sharon Mitchell article caught my eye. I have read WP:PORNBIO several times now. Are awards NECESSARY for a porn bio? It seems to me like it is one or more of the three qualifiers:

  1. Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
  2. Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
  3. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

The beginning of that guideline is a little clumsy, I think. It reads:

The following criteria should be brought up in a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion only in relation to subjects who are or have been involved in the pornography industry.

But I'm not sure how to re-word it. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Under PORNBIO, there are several ways to qualify for an article and earning certain types of awards (including being in a Hall of Fame) are one of the "easier" ways to qualify. Making "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", or being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" are generally more difficult standards to attain. It's sometimes common to find pornographic-related articles that qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia under other standards (like GNG, etc.) in addition to qualifying under some portion of PORNBIO. There really isn't any point in deleting true, well-referenced info (like award and/or nomination info) from an article. There are more than a few deletionists out there that plague this Project that would love to be able to delete more articles based on edits like the one that you've highlighted above.
Also, you're really not going to be able to "re-word" just about any text from our notability guidelines without first discussing it in a notability forum. I see no reason to inadvertently re-open PORNBIO for discussion at this time.
As an aside, I understand that both you & Scalhotrod have some type of past "history" here on Wikipedia that I'm not familiar with at all. Please don't take whatever disputes that you may have had in the past into this Project...we don't need them here. Guy1890 (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Guy1890 From what I've seen so far, LB is making an earnest effort to edit porn articles in productive manner. As you've pointed out, LB doesn't understand some of the intricacies of PORNBIO articles, but she gets up to speed very quickly. Lets assume good faith for the time being and also do our best to educate as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

lukeisback and sexherald dot com

I started a discussion at WP:RSN about the "lukeisback" and "sexherald" websites.[9]

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Adult Film Database site security

When you go to the Adult Film Database site using McAfee SiteAdvisor, you get the message:

Whoa!
Are you sure you want to go there?
http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/ may be risky to visit.
Why were you redirected to this page?
When we visited this site, we found it exhibited one or more risky behaviors.

Since we say on the project page that the Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) has more info (well, actually we say that the Adult Film Database has less info), I don't think we should be using Adult Film Database as a source and senders Wikipedia readers to a possibly harmful site.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • There's nothing wrong with going to the AFDB site. Is it the very best of sources to use in a Wikipedia article? No, but I've seen a few rare occasions when it contains some valid information that can usually be confirmed by other sources. It's been a useful & standard External Link widely used by this Project here for many, many years now. Guy1890 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not disputing that there might be some useful information there. My question is about its limited usefulness as a source compared to its security risk for readers. Lightbreather (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
There really is no "security risk for readers". I'm sorry, but McAfee software is really kind of a joke at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Names and birth dates in BLPs

The section currently headed Real names of performers about halfway down the project page and, as the header suggests, addresses only the performers' real names (per WP:BLPNAME) - but not their birth dates. I would like to propose adding WP:DOB to the section, renaming the section, and moving it higher up on the project page. Maybe even before the "Structure" section. Frankly, I think DOB should be completely private, but if that's unaccepatble, perhaps instead of full birthdates, we could just put birth years. Lightbreather (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

From one of the links above: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." As long as birth names, DOBs, place of birth, etc. have reliable sources attached to them (in an infobox & in the article's text), I don't see what the problem is. If an adult performer or former adult performer wants to have their entire article or some portion of their article scrubbed of some information, there's a whole official process to go through in order to have that done. It's been rare (since I've been involved with this Project here) that I've seen that done successfully though. Guy1890 (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Then you get into the whole "reliable source" discussion, though. I seriously doubt that many young people in the industry think about the repercussions of that data being made public, and even if they did, I doubt that many of the sources that we list on the project page care about it being made public. For a BLP of a person in such an industry, discretion in name and birth date seems a good idea. Just my two cents. Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that you're going to find many people that routinely edit pages that are under this Project's "jurisdiction" that handle the real names of adult industry performers irresponsibly. I know that I've personally removed (with little fanfare) a lot of that kind of info (that had no reliable source associated with it) from public view in more than a few pornography-related BLPs in the past. What I've actually noticed over the years is that many well-written pornography-related BLPs have much more sourcing for routine biographical info than many of our regular, run-of-the-mill BLPs on Wikipedia. Is it difficult to find truly reliable sources for at least some of this kind of info? Sure, but it's not impossible, and many of these adult performers are better known under their stage names anyways. It's not really our job to "think" for the subjects of the articles on Wikipedia...it's our job to make sure that truly contentious or controversial material on Wikipedia has a reliable source attached to it. Guy1890 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Guy1890, this must have been weighing on my mind last night, because I woke up thinking about it. Considering that WP:BLP says, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources," and considering what WP:DOB says about identity theft and erring on the side of caution - and then only if "dates of birth ... have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" - it seems it would be good editorial policy here to simply list birth years only for these people. I mean, our own project page doesn't heartily endorse any of the given sources as reliable sources (maybe for awards and filmography), and certainly not as high-quality, reliable sources.
Maybe a 3O is a good idea? Or an RfC? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Look, I recognize that you are new to the Project (and have questions that are mostly due to that newness) and that you personally believe that this is an issue, but it really isn't. Again, if you simply browse across Wikipedia, there are thousands of BLPs that don't have explicit, inline sourcing for much (if any) biographical data (like places of birth, DOBs, etc.) that's contained in infoboxes, while many well-written pornography-related BLPs do have such sourcing. There's also nothing that I've ever seen wrong with using one of the adult industry standards for this type of data (IAFD) if that source actually states that data, which it doesn't always since they are pretty strict (from what I understand) on checking their sources before publishing such data. Are there even better sources for this kind of basic information? Sure, the adult performer's own website (if one is available), other industry publications, etc.. This really is a non-issue...you really can sleep easy about it. Guy1890 (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to bring up as a side note the issue of safety and personal privacy. There are more than a few performers who DO NOT want their real names used or released. Do they get found out, yes, and if there's ever a strictest application of BLP Policy with regard to WP:RS for birth names, its in THIS particular instance that I wholeheartedly believe in it. I have spoken (or corresponded) with more than a few performers who have told me that even in retirement they fear for their safety because of "crazy fans". Of course this doesn't stop a friend from their high school "recognizing" them and then blogging, Tweeting, or what-have-you about it so that it gets out and becomes seemingly "common knowledge". But we should not be touting birth names unless we have confirmation that a performer knows AND is OK with it.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox, revisited

I just ran across this... http://business.avn.com/articles/technology/Belle-Knox-Mini-Series-to-Debut-Tuesday-on-Conde-Nast-Entertainment-572998.html

Conde Nast Entertainment is airing a mini-series about Knox and it makes me wonder if this person is now notable enough to resurrect her article? She's not the first person to do porn to pay for school, I've run across others recently, but she certainly seems to be the most famous and/or controversial.

For recap sake, the deletion discuss is here and the deletion review is here. I'm pinging a few people from the original discussion for comment............ --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I haven't been pinged although I voted in the DRV and have a well known interest in the BLP aspect of porn articles. In fact, all of the users you pinged voted to keep in the AFD which is clearly canvassing and completely invalidates any consensus arising from a discussion tainted by such tactics. Honestly, Scalhotrod, I'm just shaking my head at your behavior right now. FWIW I suggest you wait until you have a mainstream source and the series has aired and see what coverage you get from that. If there is enduring evidence of purient public interest then its worth looking to bring a draft to DRV that tries to take the BLP concerns into account. Maybe the outing article or something in sexual politics. Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I was pinged, but am certainly able to give my own opinion. I suspect Spartaz is correct, it remains too early to tell whether this subject is notable. While it's true the (minor) coverage on AVN is a slight indication that this is going beyond a WP:BLP1E, it's too little on its own. FWIW I have a feeling the Belle Knox case will survive in people's memories and be discussed and compared with later events for many years to come, at which point in the future we will have no doubt about notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW I won't watch this page, so ping me (without prejudice) if you want me to reply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Spartaz, my apologies for not notifying you of this conversation. I genuinely did not realize that you were so interested in BLP porn articles. Please do not read into the non-inclusion.
  • Otherwise, this is exactly what I was looking for! Input, plain and simple. No nefarious intent (gaming, stacking, non-partisan conspiracy), just basic conversation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, lookie here, an editor with just over 10 lifetime edits has helpfully created Belle Knox!--Milowent • hasspoken 04:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I came across this article at WP:NPP. I started a new deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Knox (2nd nomination). Participation would be welcomed. VQuakr (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I do believe that Belle Knox's article was initially created way too soon. I did not participate in the AfD or DRV, but I did notice that the article was deleted during the AfD despite the community's keep consensus. I did not participate in the discussions because I thought that all Knox had were 15 minutes of fame, but since I'm always editing porn articles, I search for porn news stories on news.google.com on a daily basis and there has been coverage of Belle Knox there pretty much everyday since the story first came out. It's been several months now, so this is no longer a WP:BLP1E. She's hosting an upcoming game show titled The Sex Factor and she is now the subject of a new documentary series. Why are we still questioning her notability? Just restore and improve/expand her article already. And "she isn't the first college student to strip or do porn to pay for tuition" is not a legitimate argument for deleting her article because she is still among the most well-known for doing this. I mean, that's like saying, "we should delete the WP articles on Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Aniston, Julia Roberts, and every other actress just because they were not the first women to become actresses and we should only have one actress biography on WP for like, Marilyn Monroe or something. Lets have only one biography article on WP for every occupation there is." Now how ridiculous does that sound? The fact that Belle Knox isn't the first college student doing porn to pay for her tuition is irrelevant. Belle Knox is also salted now. Was that really necessary? Not to mention that she is likely to win either a Best New Starlet or Mainstream/Crossover Star of the Year award at the next AVN/XBIZ/XRCO awards show(s). Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought the political coverage at the time was enough to keep the article as it went beyond just a mere "college student doing porn" to well covered news story. Now that we know the fame will be continuing there is absolutely no justification to keep the article deleted (and the person who did ignored consensus -- it's insane that admins so regularly jump in at the last second to merely support whatever side they prefer regardless what anyone else says -- should not even have deletion discussions anymore and just tag them for an admin to do whatever the hell they want on their next flyby if that's what's going to happen anyway). Since the circumstances have now changed the article should be recreated immediately. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Rebecca Bardoux

Should the article mention her mainstream career as a comedian? RFC at: Talk:Rebecca_Bardoux#RfC: Should the article mention her comedy career? -- GreenC 13:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't find it particularly controversial, but perhaps the objections to the content would be lessened if the text said something like "her website (press releases?) also promotes her activity on the stand up comedy circuit" -- or whatever text gets that point across better and more smoothly. DreamGuy (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Choose WP:Primary topic for blowjob? And cocksucker and dicksucker are synonyms for fellatio?

Opinions are needed on the Talk:Blowjob#Redirect to the disambig page and Talk:Dicksucker#Cocksucker and dicksucker are synonyms for fellatio? discussions. Something to keep in mind regarding the latter is what Johnuniq stated in that latter discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at ANI

The project is coming up regularly in this discussion [10] at ANI, so members may be interested. Lightbreather (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Mostly because I happen to loathe AN/I with a passion, I have no interest in getting involved this mess. I would like to re-iterate what I originally said here on this very talk page on the 13th of this very same month: "I understand that both you & Scalhotrod have some type of past 'history' here on Wikipedia that I'm not familiar with at all. Please don't take whatever disputes that you may have had in the past into this Project...we don't need them here."
I could see this kind of nonsense coming from a mile away. The both of you...please cut whatever the heck this is all about out. Guy1890 (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_6&oldid=1137368301"