Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)

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

Nominations (again)

[edit]

I want to bring the topic of nominations for awards back up as a topic. Note that this has been discussed in the past - see here for an archive of the last round of talks. The issue is criteria #1 as it reads right now:

"Performer has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award"

My objection is the same as it was last time:

A lone nomination by itself is not enough. A single nomination might be sufficient for an article to be created if they're up for an Oscar or Emmy (which have a broader base of competition and visibility), but not for pornography. Reason for this is as User:Geogre said in a AFD discussion: "Porn actresses have professional lifespans of a mayfly: they get enormous fame, huge numbers of appearances, and then disappear utterly in the course of 18 months." We need to filter out those flash-in-the-pans.

Now mind you, I've changed my mind slightly since the first time this topic was brought up in that I now think that if a given actress receives multiple nominations (regardless of which award or which year it is for), then she should be considered to be notable. Comments from the gallery? Tabercil 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general I agree, but I think it depends on the award. An AVN Female Performer of the Year nominee would be more notable than a double XRCO Best Group Scene nominee. I also think all AVN Female Foreign Performer of the Year nominees should be allowed an article, to help redress the American bias. Epbr123 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand what you're saying and I do somewhat sympathize with the objective... but I think the language of the guide should be kept as clean and clear as possible as the last thing we want to happen is for WP:PORNBIO to devolve into something resembling legalese. As a result I'd rather err on the side of simplicity than accuracy/conciseness... so can you suggest a statement which does what you're suggesting? Tabercil 00:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer actual wins, I'm afraid. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The decision whether to insist on one nomination, multiple nominations or an award win seems a bit arbitrary. How do any of us know where the actual dividing line is between notability and non-notability? Epbr123 14:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is disputing whether winning an award is a sign of notability. It's the nominations that's the problem... let me see if I can't get some of the other people who are listed as active in WP:P* to contribute their $0.02. Tabercil 15:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we go by wins, it would delete most of the pornstars with pages here and I really dont want to do that. Nominations seem easy to get, so multiple should be applied in that case, but winning seems harder Corpx 15:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's all relative. If nominations are easy to get, why do so many articles get deleted? Epbr123 16:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with restricting it only to wins, as long as its kept in mind that that's not the only criterion for notability. There are quite a few significant porn stars who have never won an award, sometimes not even been nominated. Also keep in mind, at least last time I checked, that the AVN Awards are not the only one that can confer notability – other awards like Euro X can indicate notability as well. Iamcuriousblue 02:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the nominations really dont carry much weight, but I usually vote keep because that's what WP:PORNBIO says, but I agree, that it should be nominations 16:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Any Porn star who receives an AVN award in my mind has notability. The higher the prestige award gained, the higher the notability. Manic Hispanic 23:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that Corpx 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at this from a different perspective. What would an article of "low importance" by our project assessment be? I wouldn't like all of WP:P* covered articles to only consist of articles which are high and above on our current scale. If we base our inclusion on a number of awards or nominations, that would likely mean a lot of articles being deleted, only to be put up on WP:DRV when the performer reaches our set amount. I would stick with nominations for major awards. -07:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • ...until they start winning awards... Maybe nominations alltogether are not a good idea, unless there are multiple "close calls", which I now see as the definition of "serious contender". There are other ways to find if an actor is notable or not. --wL<speak·check> 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thinking on nominations is that it should this: multiple nominations only. Given the plethora of categories and awards, I think it's too easy to get one nomination. Getting several is a sign of presense and persistance within the industry. I mean, look at Susan Lucci; how many times was she nominated before she finally won? Tabercil 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people here may be confusing fame with notability. WP:PORNBIO is used to estimate whether someone has recieved significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If someone recieving their first award nomination is not considered to be a significant event, is someone recieving their second award nomination significant? Would an award nomination be more likely to be written about if the nominee had previously been nominated? I'm not sure it would. I therefore think the number of nominations can't be used to establish notability. If getting one nomination is non-notable, then so is getting two. Epbr123 14:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with whoever said multiple nominations and wins. Lighthead þ 0:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the standards for inclusion are already too high so I wouldn't want to strengthen them. I continually come across performers who are well known and haveperformed in countless films only to find there articles here have been deleted. Trevor GH5 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I for one am very thankful we do have clear and high standards in WP:PORNBIO. This way it saves a great deal of time and aggravation in AFDs; all you need to do is to point to here and you usually have a clear yes/no decision. Tabercil 22:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of requiring performers to have multiple nominations, how about discounting award nominations for "best scenes"? Epbr123 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Is it the actor or the director who is mostly responsible for that nomination. I'm not sure if the way scenes are run in porn is the same as mainstream where the actors may have to go through multiple takes during a scene to get things right, or that it's all done in one take with everybody knowing what to do and how it would be done. If the director has more control over the actor, then I doubt the actor should be noted for the scene --wL<speak·check> 10:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, there's more than one actor in each scene, especially in group scenes which could have about ten female performers. Epbr123 15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the whole multiple nominations criterion is unnecessary, and, to be frank, many porn stars are nominated repeatedly, then seem to fizzle out anyway without being notable in other ways. If we go by "performer has X number of nominations", we run into the same rut that we did with "porn stars having been in X amount of films is notable". Yes, there might be a Susan Lucci of porn out there, but Lucci herself is notable, despite the repeated Emmy nominations, so that comparison doesn't really fly when discussing this potential criterion.

Also, going with wins and not nominations is far less subjective, in my view. So, I wouldn't care to see a "received X number of nominations" criterion in this guideline. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary to date

[edit]

Right. Let me summarize everything to see if we have any kind of consensus. Remember, this is NOT a democracy...

Wins only Multiple noms Any nomination Uncertain
AnonEMouse Tabercil Manic Hispanic Epbr123
Valrith Corpx TrevorGH
Joe Beaudoin Malik Shabazz
Iamcuriousblue WikiLeon
Vinh1313 Lighthead

Epbr123, I couldn't tell from your comments which way you lean, thus the uncertain column. If I put someone in the wrong column, my apologies. From the looks, we currently don't have any kind of consensus for any of the choices for what nominations mean for notability. So the question now is "what next"? Tabercil 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two-thirds of the contributors who've commented thus far seem to believe that nominations should be included. So the criterion isn't really affected in that regard. The question now is the number of nominations. Is one sufficient? Or three? Five? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two, at least that shows the performer is not a flash in the pan. --wL<speak·check> 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having given the whole thing some more thought, I've thought of something that might be better, particularly in light of the unavoidable fact that we'll run into the whole number pitfall issue with award nominations. (As I mentioned before, we had a same issue with the "X amount of movies" criterion this guideline previously had, which is one of the principal reasons it was excised.) My thought is that it may be best for the criterion to read, "multiple award nominations from more than one organization", which would be better, notability wise, as it's not just one sole organization that's nominating the person. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 08:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily against that idea but I just want to point out some problems with it. Requiring nominations from more than one organization kind of has the same WP:BIGNUMBER problem as requiring multiple nominations. Plus, because of newer awards like FAME and Venus, there will be a bias towards modern performers. Also, a performer who gets XRCO and FAME award nominations for "best group scene", along with ten other performers, would be allowed an article, whereas a five time AVN "Female of the Year" nominee would be denied one. Epbr123 16:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, you're right, it's just another big number issue... It was just a thought anyway, and seemed to makes the most sense.
And to be honest... this criterion should really come naturally from AFD debates, like a majority of these in the guideline are. It's better that something grow organically, as it were, than try to engineer something ourselves. (Unless there are AFDs where the nomination criterion is questioned or debated.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination criterion has been questioned in some recent AFD debates, such as here, but only by people who have already contributed to this debate. Epbr123 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD Epbr123 mentions is why I brought the topic back up. Now, as for the big number issue he also raises... damn. That's a very good point and I don't know how to respond to that. (Musing aloud) Could the issue of multiple nominations be better addressed by referencing it in the "Invalid Criteria" section?? Tabercil 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the concept that nominations lend them notability. Though in the spirit of compromise... perhaps I could be persuaded towards the idea of requiring multiple nominations. Hmmm..... not sure, though it is better to keep it cleaner and simpler and just require a nomination. Mathmo Talk 11:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rekindling discussion

[edit]

Seeing as there's been nothing in the way of movement here, I figured I'd rekindle discussion about the "wins vs. wins and noms" criteria. So... what does everyone think about the big number issue brought up on this talk page? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm opposed to basing the criteria on arbitrary numbers. Another matter that needs to be resolved is whether performers are given the credit for "Best Scene" awards and nominations. If people here think the current criteria are too lenient, discounting these nominations could be a better way of filtering out the lesser stars. Epbr123 22:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still of the opinion that multiple nominations is the way to go versus wins only or any noms, but I can't quite work out a decent way around that damn "big numbers" issue that Joe properly brought up... I'll admit, I'm stuck. Unless someone can come up with a solid rationalization, I think we might have to toss out the "multiple noms" category and decide on noms period being cause for notability... Tabercil 23:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Multiple", meaning more than one, is at least a commonly understood word, not a "big number". If we must have nominations as a criterion all, let's at least leave "multiple" in. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't see the reasoning behind why two nominations is notable but one isn't. It seems too arbitrary. Epbr123 14:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nor can I, even with the whole "big number" thing. Which is my point. How many is "multiple"? Specificity is needed; multiple isn't specific, numbers themselves are. In fact, I find that "multiple" to be a weasel word in this case. So I bring up the point again... specifically how many nominations does someone need to be notable, if we are to take nominations into account? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm... this might be a cheat, but do we need to specify a number? As AnonEMouse points out, the meaning of "multiple" is easily understood to be "more than one." Why not change the relevant text to read "Performer has either won or received multiple nominations for a well-known award <<snip for space>>... pornography genres. Nominations can be for different awards and/or different years"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with nominations, and why I put myself in the "wins only" column in the last survey. AVN and other awards simply don't treat noms as having any importance. Try finding a list of nominations for a previous year and you'll see what I mean. The AVN Awards website routinely dumps the entire list of nominations after each year's AVN Awards, and only keeps a permanent list of the winners. (If you look under AVN Awards#External links, you'll see that I've used Wayback Machine to compile a list of links to nominees for each year since 2000, plus Excalibur Video has started to keep records of AVN Award nominees as of 2006. So at least the records for the last 8 years are findable.) And that's just AVN – finding nominees for other awards, especially European ones, are even more difficult.) Iamcuriousblue 01:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favor of keeping it as is. Looking at the AfD track record for porn, meeting Cat 1 is the only realistic chance for saving an article. It's concrete, and therefore hard to override. AVN may not care, but that doesn't mean we have to follow suit. Final round nomination for a notable award acceptably proves notability for most other categories of people, why not here? Horrorshowj 21:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in the nominations are fluff until they become wins camp. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a nostalgy, when Wikipedia was humane Maxaxa (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be reworded

[edit]

At the moment, the page's "valid criteria" are often applied subjectively in AfD debates that I've seen, particularly criterion #3. Any thoughts?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal Discussion

[edit]
  • No Merge I think it's a horrid idea to merge everything to WP:N. Each page involved is already very large. Having the subdivisions allows for focused discussion on the guidelines, and building a usable consensus. If every notability guideline shares a talk page, it will be reduce participation on them. This guideline in particular has undergone a lot of changes over the last year or so, and is a contentious one among some wp editors. Horrorshowj 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Merge - I agree with Horrorshowj. It's preposterous to think that one notability guideline can cover all possible subjects. This shouldn't even be considered, as far as I'm concerned. Valrith 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Merge I can't really think of any better arguments than what Valrith and Horrorshowj have already brought up. Tabercil 03:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Merge Agree with the above. Ichormosquito 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Merge While the proposal seems to have been shot down (unsurprisingly and thankfully), I'll just say that the primary notability doesn't elaborate on specific criteria, since it's a generalized guideline on what is notable and how notability is determined. The sub-guidelines, however, help elaborate on the primary notability guideline by being specific and elaborating on points established therein. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Merge as per what has been said so far. Specific subject areas need specific guidelines. Iamcuriousblue 01:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WP:BIO, not WP:N. Having subject-specific guidelines in addition to the general one is a good idea, but all sorts of fine divisions like this starts to create too much bureaucratic instruction creep. The merger is not a bad idea, the bad idea is the choice of target (WP:N). I agree that having just one massive, bloated notability guideline is a bad idea, but there is also such a thing as too many notability guidelines as well. There must be a balance between both equally unacceptable extremes. mike4ty4 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As there has been a WP:SNOW decline on the proposal to merge with WP:N, but a new suggestion has come forward, I am changing the merge proposal and starting a new discussion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WP:BIO

[edit]

I agree with Mik4ty4 above, it makes sense to bring pornographic actors into line with other people. Other than academics (which is also under discussion), there are no other individual notability criteria for individual groups of people. There would need to be some explanation for why pornographic actors are treated differently. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No merge. This simply means that guidelines for notability of pornographic actors are ahead of the curve, not that they are being treated differently. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does this mean, it's "ahead of the curve"? Why are these considered so special enough to warrant their own guideline apart from WP:BIO? The problem here is instruction creep and bureaucracy. If porn actors have gotten their own notability guideline, why not other professions, too? Pretty soon there will be reams and reams of confusing and conflicting guidelines for every different thing out there -- one really horrible, Byzantine nightmare. mike4ty4 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very broad merge discussion took place at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Merge_proposal, consensus was for narrower merges and rewrites to take place. The discussion related to porn actors is currently at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Merge. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh-huh. And I've left my $0.02 at said discussion. Tabercil 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merge as per reasons given in previous discussion. Iamcuriousblue 00:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merge for all the same reasons as previously discussed for the merger with WP:N. Valrith 13:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Iamcuriousblue and Valrith cite prior discussions about the merger to WP:N, which I also thought was a step too far in consolidation, since there is no discussion of people there. However, I don't see the validity of the reference to the WP:N discussion as reasoning to opppose the merger to BIO, which now contains all of the instructions given here. Some of the criteria reamin in a separate section at BIO, but much of the good instrcution here is being applied to all people at BIO. This project has served its purpose and can fade-away. --Kevin Murray 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is still work left to do here. Consensus hasn't yet been reached on issues such as award nominations and awards for best scenes. I don't think a merge can be considered until the guidelines here and at the other BIO subguidelines are more stable. Epbr123 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A minor issue that, frankly, can be hashed out at WP:BIO as it also pertains to mainstream actors. Other than that, I'm pretty pleased with what I've seen from the new WP:BIO so far since my major objection to the purge seems to be satisfied with the "non criteria" addition to WP:BIO, and am content with the fact that WP:PORNBIO can be turned into a redirect to WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. WP:BIO is dealing with the entire issue of living people. Exceptions should be provided only if some areas need looser criteria to be included. In all other cases, WP:BIO should be the guide. We should not be trying to create guidelines that make it harder to get an article then allowed in the main guideline. If there is a problem with WP:BIO that allows too many non notable individuals to have articles, then that guideline needs to be rewritten! Vegaswikian 19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

per discussion here and at BIO the guideline has been incorporated at BIO and I am adding the redirect. --Kevin Murray 15:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(pornographic_actors)&oldid=1140417833"