Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female porn stars by decade


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. Cúchullain t/ c 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

List of female porn stars by decade

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is redundant to a category of porn stars by decade. kingboyk 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC) *Delete Most porn stars don't have their careers entirely within one decade. Keep with modifications per User:Ceyockey. Epbr123 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree. YechielMan 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are no categories of porn stars by decade, hence no redundancy. And a list can handle this sort of organization much better than a category can. Dekkappai 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, this sort of chronological listing (unlike a category) lends its self to a narrative thread, placing these isolated articles in a historical context. In fact, when I get time, I think I'll work up little decade summaries for the Japanese porn industry, and I encourage other editors to do the same for the U.S. and whatever other countries are represented. Dekkappai 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Dekkapai's statement, it can hardly be redundant to something that doesn't exist. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not because it's redundant to any category (it isn't), but due to the arbitrary, rough criteria of "by decade." What objective criteria defines someone as a "1990s porn star" vs. a "2000s porn star"? Jenna Jameson, for example, is categorized under "2000s," but according to her article she rose to prominence in 1993. Additionally, unless a reliable source can be found for every single person on this list confirming that she was most prominent during that decade, it's also original research. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is totally arbitrary at present; a single list sorted by date of first appearance, maybe, but "decade" is meaningless and "star" is a weasel word. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dekkapai. This list is an excellent nonredundant way of presenting its subject matter. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll grant that a decade is an arbitrary grouping of years by ten, because we arbitrarily use the decimal system, probably because humans have ten digits... And a year is an arbitrary grouping of days into 365 (not counting leap-year) due to the earth's rotation around the sun, and a day is an arbitrary grouping of hours into 24, etc... However, to imply that grouping by decade is original research by the porn cabal is a bit of a stretch. I daresay that if you look around Wikipedia you'll find other groupings by decade. Proposing the deletion of this list for using the arbitrary decade listing sets up an interesting precedent. As for the quibbling with the term "porn star," whether you call them pornographic actors, erotic performers, whatever, I think you'll admit that the occupation does exist. If it's the term "porn star" that is objectionable, we can debate whether to use another term. A rose by any other name, etc... I'd hardly propose deleting an article on American Indians/Native Americans/Indigenous peoples of the Americas or whatever, just because some disagree over which term to use to designate the group. Dekkappai 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep could be redundant isn't synonymous with redundant, and lists aren't redundant with categories. WilyD 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Difficult if not impossible to verify, yet alone maintain, given the nature of the business in which decades-old footage is continually repackaged. I agree with Krimpet that it's a challenge to objectively categorize people in this way. For example, Christy Canyon remains a notable porn star today- yet I don't think she's made any films since 2000. So do we list her as a 2000s star or not? The Jameson example is a good one. She's been around since the early 90s but never really became big in the mainstream until the 2000s. A better list article of this sort might be a "by decades" survey of porn stars who have become mainstream celebrities (i.e. Linda Lovelace, Jameson, Tera Patrick) which is slightly easier to verify. 23skidoo 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The success of this "Decades are unverifiable/original research" argument absolutely flabbergasts me. Debut dates are verifiable. Nearly every name on the list is blue-linked. Presumably all the sourcing is at the article. If it is not, that article will be deleted, red-linked on this list, and then removed from it. If a particular name is in the wrong decade, correct it. I believe this is how errors are dealt with in other articles. Since when has chronological order been banned from Wikipedia? Imagine, for a second, that this reasoning were applied to other subjects, 1970s in film for one. And think of the fall-out it would have on historical articles. I mentioned above that I'd write decade summaries of the Japanese industry. But since so many editors claim that decades, when they relate to porn anyway, are imaginary, unverifiable, original researchy sorts of things, I'll hold off to see if this Kafkaesque reasoning wins out. No use wasting the effort. Dekkappai 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons on the male porn actors above. Carlossuarez46 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful. bd2412  T 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepPotentially useful for some older man or woman who wants to read on porn stars of the time that they watched porn. Otherwise, a long list would be so long with so many unfamiliar names.  Recommend delete only if wikipedia is against all mention of porn.A880M 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep lists and categories are not always redundant. This stuff is generally better in a list form.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 05:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with modifications. I was going to close this as Keep - no consensus or Keep with following mods but instead decided to articulate an opinion rather than imposing one. I think this article should be first renamed to List of notable erotic actors by decade; 'actor' can refer to a man or a woman and using 'notable' and 'erotic' rather than 'star' and 'porn' better articulate the desired content.  Second, the article content should be expanded to include both male and female actors (actors and actresses) without reference to their sexual orientation; this would, for instance, allow notable content from the recently deleted List of male performers in gay porn films to be recovered into this article, allow inclusion of actors that might have switched their on screen sexuality during their career, and generally keep down the proliferation of subtopical lists.  Third, the article should start with the statement that actors are listed by the decade in which they debuted; this addresses the repeated concerns above about trying to map an actor to the decade of their prominence.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.