Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay porn stars (second nomination)


 * 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, but remove any and all unsourced or poorly sourced entries as per WP:LIVING (if such is the case), and don't put them back until you find adequate references. The arguments presented for deleting this list are accompanied by the suggestion of dumping everything into a category, which would darken the situation from imperfect to incurable. Remember that it is not possible to add footnotes to an automatically generated category page, which, in isolation and at face value, may be interpreted as libelous. Controversial classifications, especially of people, should be handled by properly cited lists, rather than by categories. --CharlotteWebb 19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of gay porn stars
I am nominating this article for deletion. Most of listed names are not sourced and listing them does not meet WP:V. Jimbo has said that calling someone a "porn star" without providing a source is something that should be removed from Wikipedia articles. Everyone who should be on a list like this and meets the sourcing rules for WP:BIO for living persons should be listed in the gay porn stars category which already has many more verified names than this list. WP doesn't need two different lists on the same subject (even if one is called a category). The category is better. So it is the one that should be kept. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pointless, the list adds nothing that wouldn't be done better by a category. Paddles TC 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The List of gay porn stars article is separate and distinct from the Gay porn stars category ; the category does not duplicate the information in the article. The article is a list of names; the category is a list of articles. Articles haven't been written about each performer on the list; one of the uses of the list is to identify articles which need to be written.


 * The veracity of the names on the list can be checked against the reference sources listed on the Talk:List of gay porn stars page. That list of sources can be moved to an "External links" or "References" section at the bottom of the main article if need be.


 * Most of the names on the list are familiar to those who are interested in gay pornography. While organizing and reformatting the list recently, I searched on several names that I didn't recognize and deleted them from the list if I couldn't find videographies or reliable information for them. This is ongoing work; the article is closely monitored by several different editors and attempts at vandalism are reverted.


 * This nomination may e s tablish an unwanted precedent. If this succeeds, other articles in the same vein will need to be deleted as well, among the likely candidates are:


 * List of bisexual porn stars
 * List of female porn stars
 * List of female porn stars by decade
 * List of hispanic porn stars
 * List of Jewish pornographic actors
 * List of porn stars who are lesbians
 * List of porn stars who appeared in mainstream films
 * List of transsexual porn stars


 * &mdash; Chidom   talk   04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)  [  Updated recommendation to clarify difference between lists of names (articles) and lists of articles (categories) 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ] 


 * Strong Keep, but list only those names with their own entries on Wikipedia. HalJor 21:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - perhaps remove those without Wikipedia entries (as per HalJor. Rhyddfrydol 02:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - one of the reasons for having the list is to show articles that need to be written; removing the names that don't have already have entries defeats the purpose of the list. Check out Categories, lists, and series boxes:
 * "3. Lists can include items for which there are no articles (red links); categories can only list things for which there are articles, unless stubs are created."
 * If you check the Talk:List of gay porn stars page, you'll see that the consensus was to de-wikilink names for which articles didn't exist to remove all the red links, but leave the names to show which articles were still needed.
 * Creating stubs isn't the solution, either; they get deleted before they have a chance to be developed. In the case of Manuel Torres (porn star), the page was tagged with an AfD (never mind a ProD) 1 hour and 12 minutes after it was started (see Articles for deletion/Manuel Torres (porn star)).
 * Bottom line. It's either "Keep" or "Delete"; removing the names from the list that don't already have articles duplicates the category and renders the list useless. &mdash; Chidom   talk   03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * - Point taken. For the record I am not against names appearing in the list without Wikipedia links, and I totally understand that the purpose of the list is to give a pointer to articles which need creating. I now vote keep. Rhyddfrydol 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. For some reason, it seems to be a common misconception that categories and lists are interchangeable.  They are not - please see WP:CLS. fbb_fan 01:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Remove the ones that don't have IMDB entries, keep the rest even if they don't yet have Wikipedia articles. I will take care of that. Augurr 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete names that don't have IMDB entries. That is not a valid resource for gay pornography; it's barely tenable for mainstream films&mdash;there's a page there for me, for example. I'm listed as "Other crew" in a documentary that won an Academy Award; I was on staff at the company that was the subject of the documentary. &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, point well taken. My boyfriend's porn collection would've made a much better source. I regret I made him get rid of it. Having said that, we still need to find some way of gauging which of these actors are notable enough. Augurr 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A guideline for porn stars is developing at WP:PORN BIO; however, bear in mind that notability is not required by any Wikipedia policy. &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, if some content in the article violates some WP rule, remove it; we don't remove the whole article. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem with this argument is simple. To fix the policy violations we have to remove all the names that aren't verified by the list's article. Right now that's all the names if you read the policy strictly. If you read the policy in a looser way, the blue-linked names can be kept because the articles should be verified. But that leaves a list that's either the same as the category, or it has even fewer names. If we fix the list to meet the WP:BIO policy it's redundant with the category. If we're not going to fix the list, the article can't stay. So either way it should be deleted. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. What exactly would "fix" the list? The list explicitly defines who is listed: "male pornographic actors who appear in gay films". The header goes on to say that no claim is being made about the sexual orientation of anyone on the list. If the actor is listed in the cast of a movie and has sex with another man in that movie, he qualifies for the list. Cast lists are available at the links that are provided in the "See also" section of the page. I've copied two of the sites that were listed on the talk page to this section. Some of the sites allow you to search by an actor's name and retrieve a list of films that he is in; a commercial site may only list films that they have in stock. (tlavideo also lists films that are not available.) So where's the verifiability problem? &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sounds to me like there isn't a problem. fbb_fan 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment certainly not to delete the entire article. New York City has unsourced statements, so should we delete it too? The jihadis here would no doubt like that. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Lists of non-notable pornografic actors are unencyclopedic, IMO, and the notable ones are already listed in the category. Non compliance with WP:V is also problematic.  Eluchil404 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * *Comment. Again, how is it not in compliance with WP:V? Sources are listed and reliable. &mdash; Chidom   talk   09:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the names must be individually sourced. Just listing outside sites and saying "look him up there" isn't good enough. Jimbo Wales has said solid sourcing for claiming somebody is a porn star (gay or straight) is "absolutely imperative." That's why I say WP should keep the category and delete the list. The category names are supposed to be verified already since they're in articles. All those unlinked names in the list aren't WP:verified -- they need specific, reliable citations. At least one of those outside sites is useless -- it just gives a not-alphabetized list of names. (All the As are together, but not in order, etc.) Another links to semispam sites with no way of proving that the names match the pictures. I get spam all the time about porn with Jennifer Lopez, Allysa Milano, etc. The pages are there, the porn pix are there -- but the pictures aren't JLo or Milano. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems overkill to have a list and acategory.--Runcorn 19:51, 24 August 2006 (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.