Talk:List of actors in gay pornographic films/Archive 2

How to edit this article

 * Note: Please read this information carefully before editing the article.

This is not a directory. See Wikipedia is not a directory.

This article is an index of Wikipedia articles that have been written and also serves as a list of articles that need to be written. In order for a name without an article to be included here, there must be a reasonable expectation that an article will be written about the person. See List guideline, Wikipedia:Lists of people.

With rare exceptions, the person who is the topic of the article should meet the current versions of the Notability (pornographic actors) and Notability guidelines. Like much else in Wikipedia, these are often undergoing edits; however, if an article is challenged for removal, failure to satisfy those guidelines is likely to be quoted as a reason for the article's deletion.

Any information about men listed here should always comply with Biographies of living people.

The list does not include performers who have appeared on websites or in live shows unless they have also appeared in a gay porn film.

Inclusion or removal
In addition to the statements above, the following list more specifically defines who may be included here.


 * 1) Unsourced names are removed.
 * 2) There must be a source for each name appearing on the list—each pseudonym ("a.k.a.") must be sourced.
 * 3) * The name must be sourced here even if there is an article on the person. If it's listed here, it needs to be sourced here as well as in the article. Other Wikipedia articles are not valid sources for this article.
 * 4) * The source must show that the performer has appeared in a gay porn film.
 * 5) * A source need not be a link to an internet website; other reliable sources may be cited. See Wikipedia:Attribution—Reliable sources.
 * 6) * Links to self-published personal websites are not valid sources. See Wikipedia:Attribution:Using questionable or self-published sources.
 * 7) * Links to retail websites are to be avoided.
 * 8) Each name requires only one citation to a reliable source to allow the name to be included here. Multiple references to encompass a performer's complete body of work are not required nor encouraged (put them in the performer's article).
 * 9) Names with videographies of four or fewer original films (not compilations) may be removed; they should not be reinserted until an encyclopedic article about them has been written.
 * 10) If an article about a performer failed an Articles for Deletion (AfD) deletion review the performer's name should be removed until an article that will survive such a review is written. See the section Removing names from the list below about the process for doing this.
 * 11) If no verifiable source showing the person was a performer in a gay porn film is found, 'the name must be deleted from the article and no further refernce to the name made—not in the edit summary or on this talk page.

Styles for entries with and without articles
All the videographies for a performer with pseudonyms should be listed at the first name in the list, even if that is not the most commonly known name or the name used for the title of the article. The use of see in his subsequent listings cross-references the first name; all the pseudonyms for a performer need not be listed at each entry in the list. Only the name with the references needs to be cross-referenced:


 * Daniel Brown a.k.a. Danny Brown, Dany Brown, Richard French Daniel Danny Dany French (straight)
 * Danny Brown see Daniel Brown
 * Dany Brown see Daniel Brown
 * Richard French see Daniel Brown

The name that is the link to an article may be included in the cross-reference:
 * Max Orloff see Jakub Moltin, a.k.a. Pavel Novotný

Unless there is an article on the performer listed here, their name should not be wikilinked. There should never be redlinks in this article. Do not wikilink a name before writing an article on the performer. An article about a person with an identical name to one listed here will be linked here even though the subject of the other article is not a performer in gay porn films.

Removing names from the list
A name on the list that is not a porn performer must be completely deleted; the name should not be mentioned in the edit summary; nor should it be listed here. The process of using invisible comments detailed below does not apply in the case where there is no evidence that the person was in porn.

If the name being removed is properly sourced and there is no question as to whether the person is a performer, it is preferable to format the name as an invisible comment rather than removing it. This will help prevent the same name being added and deleted multiple times. The comment should include the name of the performer, a reference to the source that shows he is a porn performer, and the reason for deletion.

If an article about a performer is deleted the name should be removed from the list and not reinserted unless and until an article that meets Wikipedia's requirements is written on the performer. Subsequent editors will then know not to reinsert it until the article about the performer is written. For example, Ralph Woods—who is a porn performer videography —failed an Articles for deletion review. Rather than deleting his entry altogether, it is commented out, using the invisible comments format:




 * The edit summary for the removal was: "Commented out Ralph Wood—failed AfD".

Only one blank line may be used outside the comment, either above or below the text; otherwise, an additional blank line is shown in the list. Multiple blank lines may be used inside the comment between the marks. Remember to leave the reference/videography information in the comment and add the reason for the name being removed so that the name isn't relisted.

Note: To reiterate, there should never be an invisible comment for a name that was deleted for not being sourced as a porn performer. Nor should the name be included in the edit summary; "Removed unsourced name" should be used instead. If the name is unsourced, it should not be associated with gay porn at all; do not list the name on the article's Talk page, either.

Article titles
Unless there is already an article with the same name as that of the performer or the performer's name is likely to be confused with someone or something else, no descriptor/modifier needs to be appended to the name for the article's title.

If a modifier is need, the convention is to use "(porn star)" after the name. In cases where there are more than two articles with identical names, they should all be listed at a disambiguation page (for an example, see Randy White).

"Unsourced" template
I believe the "unsourced" tag at the top is unnecessary. The discussion that went on in this talk area has been supplanted by the fact that the entire list changed format. And we've been through the sourcing issue a thousand times - in deletion discussions, here, and elsewhere. Please - do we need to bring it up again? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I just went by the first section on this page, "How to edit this article", which clearly says that every entry on this list must be sourced here. Second, this is standard behaviour for all articles, whether they are lists or not (excluding disambiguation pages normally). See e.g. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A for an example of such a sourced list on a potentially controversial subject. Also List of transgender people. While there are still other lists of potentially controversial BLPs without sourcing, this does not mean that we should set this as the default. As for deletion discussions and so on: the last AfD / DRV ended with, according to Deletion review/Log/2007 April 18, "the consensus is that each name on the list has to be individually sourced". Fram (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Globalizing effort
Just a note that we remain US-centric but there are Category:Pornographic film awards that are international. Most do not seem to cover gay content but some do. -- Banj e b oi   14:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Spot check of link clean-up
I've just spot-checked the "S" section. The disambiguation of links (which is presumably to avoid inadvertently linking to the wrong person) seems to have been ignored. There is also a link to a disambiguation page remaining, and a person has been left on the list with no reference, although there is a {citation} tag. Clearly, if there is no source for including someone on this list, they should be removed per WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just went back through "S", made one wlink a redlink, as it had linked to a DAB page with no correct entry, and deleted another name as there was no apparent indication of gay porn. Cheers, LindsayHi 19:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, LindsayH, but my intention wasn't to show two specific links that I would have fixed myself under different circumstances, it was to highlight potential issues with the link clean-up. I picked the letter "S" more or less at random. There may be similar links in other sections. The issue of disambiguating links seems to have been ignored entirely in this section and likely others, although it was part of the outline of what would be addressed. Perhaps a second pass of each section by different editors would prove helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you could simply stop directing other volunteers what to do and simply list any links that likely should be fixed. This seems like a passive aggressive insult as to the quality of my editing as I edited that section and you clearly know that. Instead of simply stating I think it's time to remove that one as unsourced and by the way this one points to a disambiguation page you chose to turn it into harassment 2.0. Based on your history here it would be likely better to move along rather than restir up more problems. Constructive suggestions that don't take digs at editors including myself are certainly welcome but more needless drama is not. -- Banj e  b oi   04:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi, please read through my comments again. You will see that I didn't mention your name nor did I attempt to find fault for not having followed through on the disambiguation of links. Rather than responding with insinuations and personal attacks, perhaps you could actually take my feedback at face value? Is your goal here to improve this article or to simply react negatively whatever I say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The general sum total of your efforts in this entire subject area has been to delete, disparage and disrupt. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact and I suggest you find more constructive areas where actual BLP certainly do exist if your feel that is your forte. Your personal campaign and wikihounding is completely unhelpful and increasingly misguided. Even asking if my goal is to improve this list is quite insulting and if you do not see that likely should take a break and think about what Wikipedia's goals are and how you intend to abide by them including dealing with other editors. In my book you've done nothing but stirred up drama and disruption repeatedly and needlessly. Please leave me alone and stop following my editing. -- Banj e  b oi   04:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your accusations tiresome and they are beginning to get less and less rooted in anything that is being said here. Perhaps it would be better for everyone if you let someone else reply to my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, i took DC's initial statement as an indication that something was still lacking in "S" so, after realising that he must have a different editing philosophy to mine, i went looking through the letter to see what i could find (cleverly, i didn't notice the wlinks in the comment till after i had finished) and fix. I'm a little confused, though, DC:  Are you suggesting that every entry ought to have a (pornographic actor) DAB?  Because i don't think that was implied originally, nor would it be necessary; if i'm misinterpreting, i apologise.  The other alternative is that Banjeboi or Doc or whoever simply missed Scott Russell on their first pass through, isn't it? Cheers, LindsayHi 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I took "If no article exists please add a disambiguation like Adam Foo (actor) so we know that no article exists" to mean that all red links should be to links of a form similar to Actor Name (pornographic actor) so that there was less chance of repeating the accidental linking to articles that were not about porn performers. As Benjiboi points out in the Article names discussion above, some people may be better known for other activities, but for red links this form seems most appropriate. My other point was that if things were accidentally missed in one section, they may have been similarly missed in others. My suggestion is simply to do a second pass, which should be fairly quick, with editors picking sections that were originally cleaned by someone else. I wasn't implying that anyone deliberately left that incorrect link at Scott Russell and I'm truly at a loss to understand how my comments here can be taken as disruptive, but I'm getting used to that. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Actually that's rather the opposite. We only disambiguate as neeeded. If there are no other articles by the same name there remains no reason to disambiguate at all. If there is another article by the same name then determining what the person is best known for (actor, entrepreneur, director, etc.) will guide as to the best disambiguation. As for your comments here, you chose to cage it about the contributor instead of just the content. Coupled with your history here and seeming eagerness to take digs at me as well as deleting content on gay pornography actors applying Occum's razor gives us the most likely reasoning. That you are bewildered that your actions are seen as disruptive suggests WP:Competent applies as well. -- Banj e b oi   14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely wrong and highly irresponsible, so far as redlinks go. As I pointed out in the related AN discussion, redlinking a name without disambiguation spawns BLP violations if an article is created for a different person with the same name -- and there are typically no less notable people sharing names with the redlinks on the list that aren't disambiguated. It's bad practice generally to lace a list with redlinks, particularly a list that requires particular scrutiny under BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't corrupt redlinks to avoid hypothetical articles. If and when an article is created that points to the wrong person we simply follow the same disambiguation protocols for any other article. And every BLP listed on any article is under the same BLP scrutiny. We apply the same standard everywhere - not lighter or heavier in certain areas. -- Banj e  b oi   21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Major BLP issue: I cut some links to Ben Andrews. Someone named Ben seems to have appeared in a few porn vids, and someone else named Ben ran in an election in Ontario, while yet some other Ben is good at maths and won an Aussie medal of some sort. Linking to an unqualified common name that already has extant links targeting is Highly Inappropriate when the subject matter of the article could have an adverse impact on some person. This same thing happened with Parker Williams;  (and more). And Benjiboi has restored this BLP problem.
 * So, do not redlink to names without using a (pornographic actor) parenthetical suffix; any such links should be removed and a good criteria is to look to see if something is already targeting the red title. For an obviously common name such as Ben Andrews it's a no brainer: qualify the title
 * Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * General comment/advice to DC and Ben (feel free to ignore, it's worth what you paid for it). Ben, when DC _is_ doing something helpful for the article/topic it's probably best just to say "thank you" even if you believe he has less-than-clean motivations.  DC: it would be _more_ helpful if you fixed problems you find (that you know all would agree are problems) rather than seeming to direct others and criticize.  If in doubt about it being an acceptable-to-all edit, providing wikicode as a suggested replacement might work.  In any case, I'm glad to see everyone is working together, however begrudgingly, to fix this article up.  Ben's done a great job, but it's huge and needs a lot of eyes!  Best of luck. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get the feeling that everyone is working together and I'm not sure why you do. If I thought I could make any edits here without being reverted and receiving a fresh round of accusations, I would. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. But the article is improving, so the net effect is positive.  If you feel you can't make edits, I'd suggest you propose edits here (including wiki code so it can be easily changed/inserted) and allow discussion.  I think we all agree that removing BLP problems is important here, we just disagree about what makes for a BLP problem.  If people try to get along as people, even if they disagree on the material, things will improve much more quickly. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How should IMDB links be handled for this list?
As I understand it, IMDB is not considered a reliable source, however is legitimately used for general information on an actor (e.g. co-actors in a film, film dates and for showing which films an actor has appeared in) but is considered unreliable for biographical data (e.g. birth dates, family details), see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40 for an associated discussion. My example is which has been recently deleted from the article on the assumption that it was included to justify alternative names of Adam Wilde, however the footnote seems reasonable to keep as a source of films he has appeared in. Does this need an RfC to reach a consensus on how they could be used?—Ash (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All the IMDB's IMHO, should likely be bolstered as they can be helpful for those wanting to see a full filmography which this list certainly won't house. That site isn't RS for defining those tricky, especially BLP issues like date of birth etc. - but it can be useful to show an actor has been in say 43 films vs. 5 and giving information that may help those looking for more. For instance, we need a better source for a.k.a.'s but at least knowing what some of them are helps us find the others. -- Banj e  b oi   14:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed for now - borderline

 * Cort Stevens a.k.a. Chris Burns - An American gay pornographic actor and model active from 1994-mid 2000s.
 * This one needs more research, there is plenty of reliable sources including (Vulgar favors: Andrew Cunanan, Gianni Versace, and the largest failed manhunt in U.S. history (1999), Maureen Orth, Delacorte Press, ISBN 0385332866, 9780385332866) but they borderline GNG presently. There's a reasonable chance an award or two will show up but for now it's not clear they meet WP:Pornbio or WP:GNG. -- Banj e  b oi   14:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony Capucci
OK, here's the story: Tony Capucci was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Tony Capucci. The decision was to redirect to the current page. Then a DRV was started at Deletion review/Log/2009 December 2. I closed it with the result "overturn and delete". My rationale is given on the DRV page; basically, according to WP:SALAT, this list should not contain his name, so under the assumption that he is not in the list obviously the redirect should be deleted. However, User:Hobit commented on my talk page about the decision, and we've agreed that a discussion here would be the best. The question is: Should Capucci be included in this list? Note that it has already been decided in the AfD that he should not have an article. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Include, on the basis of the sources raised in the AfD discussion. He has a significant gay porn filming record with Falcon Studios and I would have thought the fact that he was filming with Sacha Baron Cohen makes him notable and interesting enough for this list.—Ash (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But SALAT says, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles." I'm fine with having an article on him, thus having him in the list as well. The AfD says otherwise, however (if sufficient reliable sources can be found, the decision can be overridden of course). But if as of now, since he doesn't have an article, he doesn't belong in the list. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly mellow on this, but my one comment is that that guideline is often unobserved. I've looked for lists of people and not found one with more than 20 entries that are all blue links.  That said, it _is_ the guideline and has been for a long while, so following it should be the default unless there is good reason not to.  No opinion if Ash's comments above are enough to overcome that default or not... Hobit (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the guideline is supposed to be ignored arbitrarily, then we should get rid of it. If the guideline is supposed to be ignored for specific reasons, then we should come up with exceptions to add to the guideline. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, but let's look at the first three featured lists of people. has a massive number of black links.   has none.   has a red link.  If the featured articles of this type commonly ignore the guideline, don't you think there should be some wiggle room for other articles?  Again, I'm not taking a stand as to if he should be deleted or not--I honestly think the arguments to keep and delete it here are quite weak.  I'm just saying WP:SALAT is ignored often enough, even in featured lists, that it shouldn't be treated as an absolute bar to having black/red links here.  Hobit (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Red links exist to encourage people to write articles on subjects that are likely to be notable. We had an AfD, consensus was that Capuci wasn't notable, why have them in the list at all? Why have anyone in this list who doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO? Take a look at List of female porn stars by decade. It doesn't have any red links or any unlinked entries, and it doesn't suffer from the same sourcing and BLP issues that have had this article up for deletion several times and just got a similar list deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And the one that's about half black links? Should those be removed?  There is almost no likelihood of the vast majority of those having articles due to not meeting WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Being picked at the bottom of the draft!= notability. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know which article you are talking about. My comments relate to this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And my comments relate to the featured list article mentioned above.  Sorry if I was unclear. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments relate to this article, which deals with gay porn performers, not athletes. The concerns are not equivalent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument put forward is WP:SALAT which applies equally to both. That's actually all I'm commenting on.  I don't see significant BLP issues with keeping the red/black links, but nor do I see any pressing need to have them.  I do however believe that if folks are on this list, there should be redirects pointing to here when articles don't exist.  Just as WP:REDIRECT would indicate and is standard. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If people are on this list, they should have an article, so a redirect is not necessary. If people do not have an article, they should not be on this list. With that out pf the way, would you object if I remove all red and black links now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is consensus for such a change, nor do I think it's needed. But as noted, I don't personally think it matters either way.  So you'll have to work it out with others. I just swung by to comment on SALAT and WP:RELIST.  Hobit (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Using the GOOGLETEST, Tony Capucci seems oddly notable considering the AfD recommended deletion. I count 10/10 matches on the first search page being for this porn star, in some form or the other, rather than any other guy. For most AfD discussions this would indicate a good expectation that notability can be justified even if sources found by current editors are not yet sufficient.—Ash (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)