User:Шизомби/Brainstorming PORNBIO

On this subpage I'm drafting some thoughts to present for discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) regarding WP:PORNBIO and/or to develop into a notability essay but am not ready to do so yet.

Articles regarding pornographic actors have presented problems on Wikipedia. This may also be true of articles regarding pornographic directors, pornographic movies, etc. but that does not seem to be as big an issue. (But porn is probably dealt with more strictly than the guidelines of Notability (people) Notability (films).)

Some past discussions of PORNBIO:

Some search links for prior AfDs on pornographic actors:
 * (definitely AfDs on pornographic actor articles) 66 as of 08:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (definitely AfDs on pornographic actor articles) 4 as of 08:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (definitely AfDs on pornographic actor articles) 8 as of 08:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (probably mostly AfDs on pornographic actor articles) 717 as of 08:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (probably more of a mix of articles) 1,665 as of 08:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (probably more of a mix of articles) 1,073 as of 08:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Pornography/Deletion
 * WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts

Problems with articles
A number have little more than:
 * a statement that “X is an actor in pornography”


 * the appropriate categories, including at least one that is Category:Pornographic film actors or one or more subcategories thereof
 * a Infobox adult male or Infobox adult female
 * sourcing may be limited to two or three of the potential site links in the infobox, the Internet Adult Film Database, the European Girls Adult Film Database, British Girls Adult Film Database, the Internet Movie Database, and the Internet Adult Film Database.

Stub articles can be problematic, e.g. Avoiding common mistakes (an unclassified Wikipedia: namespace projectpage) asserts that there are "Articles which are too short to have encyclopedic value." Stubs such as described above come close to meeting the "A3. No content" criterion for speedy deletion, "Any article [...] consisting only of external links, category tags".

Problems with Articles for Deletion discussions
Things that seem to recur:
 * Articles for Deletion’s Before nominating an article for deletion is often not followed.
 * some Wikipedians have an open contempt for pornography and want most or all such articles deleted
 * a nominator's reason for deletion: "Delete because it is offensive, pornographic, and can serve no possible purpose." Articles for deletion/Peter North (porn star)
 * a contributor's reason for deletion: "Wikipedia should not tolerate or promote obscenity." Articles for deletion/Abihail
 * a nominator's subsequent comment: "Its absolutely disgusting that we have something on the order of 1,000+ porn actor articles, when there probably aren't more than a a few dozen (and I'm being charitable with that figure) who genuinely merit authentic notability." Articles for deletion/Aja (pornographic actress)
 * some pornography fans may want all or most such articles kept
 * some argue saying an individual is an actor in pornography is a BLP violation
 * some argue the birthname or legal name of the actor must be known
 * part of a nominator's reason: "We don't even know her birth name for sure." Articles for deletion/Asia Carrera
 * a contributor's comment: "She's a porn star and so she has this stage last name related to orgasm and semen. I think if that is not her real name then it detracts from the article's notability." Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings
 * part of a contributor's reason for deletion "we don't even have the real name" Articles for deletion/Cameo (porn star)
 * some argue the actor must have notability outside of pornography, such as mainstream media coverage.
 * WP:PORNBIO is seen as overly restrictive or permissive
 * some articles which are kept are resubmitted until deleted:
 * 90 as of 08:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 10 as of 08:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 100 2nd nominations total, about 1.5% of all 2nd nominations using my searches and totals at Template talk:Afdx
 * 15 as of 08:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 15 3rd nominations total, about 2.2% of all 3rd nominations using my searches and totals at Template talk:Afdx
 * (includes some additional porn actor AfDs, AfDs of lists of porn stars, lists of porn movies, sex acts, and non-pornography-related AfDs that referenced porn) 270 as of 08:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Resubmission is permissible, see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions AKA WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED and see also Perennial proposals, but it has the potential for abuse. I haven't found a guide indicating why/when it should be done or noting the potential for abuse so far. Шизомби (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * the existence or keeping of articles on actors in pornography sometimes is resented by editors arguing for the notability of authors or other people
 * "one of England's 'leading cultural critics' is apparently not, by Wikipedia editor consensus, as notable as a moderately obese middle-aged woman who films herself having sex with dogs, and the TLS is apparently by the same consensus not a "major" publication with the stature and reputation of Color Climax Anal Sex or Big Fuckin' Tits, or even Juggs," Articles for deletion/Ophelia Benson

Notability and Verifiability
It is likely that general indicators of notability can be found for many actors, and specific indicators can be found for some. The problem with articles about them might be less one of notability and more that secondary sources can be hard to come by.

Notability
One of the more concrete measures of notability are Category:Pornographic film awards and mainstream media coverage. However, there are other things to look for.

Verifiability
Pornography is somewhat emphemeral in nature; older movies and magazines are generally harder to find as there is a promotion of and/or interest in the newest performers, in the newest movies, doing new things. This was true of non-pornographic films as well; most silent-era films are lost. As the articles on lost films and ephemera note, (also garbology and probably others as well); things that may have been considered to have little or no value at the moment of their creation or things considered to have lost their value after their initial intended use are now objects of study and collectibles. Pornography has further suffered in that it is also widely considered obscene and taboo, and thus has often historically been kept secretive and been subject to censorship, including destruction by authorities.

Pornographic periodicals are relatively unlikely to have created their own indexes, and there may not even be many indexes created by others such as are available for many magazines and journals.

Pornography Studies as a distinct academic field seems relatively new; Professor Linda Williams’ Hard Core: Power, Pleasure and the Frenzy of the Visible and Porn Studies are examples. Nevertheless, many libraries have holdings for long-running, prominent pornographical periodicals such as Playboy Holdings for publications specializing in adult films such as Adam Film WorldAdult Video Newsappear to be more limited. [:Category:Category:Sex museums]] may have some; some in Category:Sexology may, e.g. the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction does. Sex-positive feminism and Anti-pornography feminism have also studied the subject; the Andrea Dworkin Papers at the Schlesinger Library at Harvard University have print and film pornography she collected for her research, and this may be true of other special collections as well.