Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films


 * 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 delete. This page serves no other purpose than being redunant to a category. Linking to a ridiculous amount of webpages advertising gay porn actors is not a good idea. Wikipedia is neither a link farm, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information (most of the performers listed on the page are not notable enough to have an article on themselves). As to the question of controversial classification, this page runs into the risk of violating WP:LIVING more often than not and is easily susceptible to libellous editing, which wouldn't be a problem with the more notable porn stars listed in a category, as much of the needed information would be available about the subjects on the internet. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why List of American composers exists, and this cannot? That would be a straw man, the former only lists notable subjects, who are note-worthy enough to have individual articles on Wikipedia. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films

 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. &mdash; Chidom   talk   19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previous noms: Articles for deletion/List of gay porn stars, Articles for deletion/List of gay porn stars (second nomination)

There's so many problems with this article it's hard to know where to start. OK, deep breath:
 * The only info it contains are names (redundant to a category) and external URLs (WP:NOT a link farm)
 * It contains a massive self reference (editing instructions)
 * The primary purpose of the list - i.e. the only useful function it serves which a category couldn't - is that it allows the tracking of needed articles. This seems to be a main motivation on the talk page certainly. Per WP:LIST, maintenance lists should be in project space.

Putting it in the less friendly way, I believe this is pure listcruft and recommend we delete it. --kingboyk 12:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On one other point. Whilst I'm not a conneisour of this form of entertainment :), I am led to believe that this industry churns over stars at a phenomenal rate. As such, the list will be difficult to complete and will become very large - another argument in favour of using a category instead. --kingboyk 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy - it looks like based on the edit history that User:Chidom is the person putting the most work in on this, so if he wants it, put it in his space. Otherwise delete. Otto4711 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I recommendeded moving to WikiProject space, but the folks on the talk page weren't interested. Of course, should it be deleted and they change their mind about that, an admin can always "userfy" it to WikiProject space or user space if requested. --kingboyk 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edison 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - An exceptionally useful list. One of the things it contains that a category couldn't possibly is the "AKA" info.  This poor list has gone through so much negativity - does the List of female porn stars by decade go through the same harassment? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keep, and I hope you're not accusing me of bias! I wasn't aware of the list other you mentioned; it's not as messy as this one but nonetheless it does seem to be redundant to a category so I've nominated that one too. --kingboyk 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflicted with the next post)
 * To clarify the two main points noted in the nom, a) The AKA info alone is extremely useful, as well as containing info on articles not yet written, so it's not redundant to a category. b) The external URLs are *REQUIRED* per BLP. They're called "References" - we do like to have those in an encyclopedia. c) The self referencing can probably be cut down, but that's no reason to delete. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They're not references, or at least certainly not formatted as such. --kingboyk 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep We have quite a few lists of pornograpy actors. See Category:Lists of porn stars. I don't see any reason given which indicates why this one should be deleted in particular. It is fully sourced and serves a purpose that a category could not: tracking the many stage names of the actors. I agree that the self-references should be removed, but that's not a reason to delete the article. -Will Beback · † · 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not going to cast a vote on keep or delete, but if kept, this has to be renamed as the current title is redundant. By definition gay porn features male performers. 23skidoo 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The name isn't redundant; gay porn films also have females in them at times. The list is of male performers. The article was renamed after a lengthy discussion regarding changing the article name from "List of gay porn stars". The former title resulted in frequent comments that the list was claiming that the men listed were gay (despite the explicit comment that the men listed "may or may not be gay" and a reference to Gay for pay. Another consideration was that names of men who were appearing only on websites (which can sometimes open and close in a matter of days) were being added; finding reliable sources for those names would have been a nightmare, so the list is limited to men performing in films. &mdash; Chidom   talk   05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for better or worse, porn is notable and actors in porn films are notable, and WP has lots of lists of porn actors (stars?), which is perfectly OK. Carlossuarez46 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is the third nomination for the article. Per Categories, lists, and series boxes, this article fulfills the functions of a list as defined by Wikipedia: (colored text with a different type face is used for my editorial emphasis; all other formatting is as it appears on the article page.
 * Information
 * The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
 * Navigation
 * Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists....If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles ).
 * Development
 * Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written . However, as Wikipedia is optimised for readers and not editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space.


 * CharlotteWebb, closer of the most recent Afd prior to this one:
 * "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."


 * Any bias here may not be with regard to sexual orientation, but perhaps the subject of pornography is bothersome? Otherwise, why not nominate every list on Wikipedia?


 * Why have List of American composers? Couldn't that be served by a category as well? The article actually references Category:American composers. The difference with the list is that it is annotated; that's not possible with the category.


 * Shouldn't the List of 00 ZIP codes (and related articles) be a category, as its purpose seems to be grouping towns by ZIP code? The answer is no, since not all the towns in a ZIP code group have articles yet.


 * I'm not trying to say that Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions isn't applicable here. I just find it interesting that this is again a target for deletion when it's been demonstrated twice before to be a valid resource for Wikipedians and well within Wikipedia guidelines for lists, while other lists are never questioned.


 * The same issues keep arising with regard to the article. Here are the issues and responses:


 * Each name on the list wasn't individually sourced; only links to a few searchable websites were listed as being references for the entire list.
 * Individual sources are being provided.
 * The format of the references is an issue.
 * In-line links are an appropriate format for references.
 * The references link to commercial websites.
 * Anyone is welcome to find another easily-referenced and accessible reliable source for gay porn and change the links. Commercial websites offering porn films for sale in which the performer listed appears are unquestionably reliable.
 * The individual sources were being added as invisible comments; the links have to be available to everyone reading the article without editing the article.
 * The references were being added as invisible comments to avoid any question of motives in linking to commercial websites, that was ruled to be inadequate; the links are now visible.
 * The articles that need to be written aren't displayed as red links.
 * When they were wikilinked, articles created for non-porn performers with the same names were written and were linking back to the list. For that reason, there is an invisible comment to editors at the beginning of each section of the list to forego wikilinking the name until there is an article for the person as a porn performer.
 * The article contains self-references.
 * The remaining self-references have been marked as such with the selfref template. The Inclusion or removal section is not a self-reference; it has been specifically worded to avoid being just that. It is designed to explain how the list is compiled, not how to edit it. It is also designed to serve as notice to editors here as to the composition of the list to try and minimize inappropriate additions.
 * The list will be difficult to maintain.
 * All lists containing dynamic information are difficult to maintain; whatever solutions are found for other lists of this type can be applied here. At the moment, it's a non-issue. Remember, too, that it's not meant to be a list of every gay porn performer on the planet.
 * The list is a maintenance list and belongs in project or user space.
 * That is true for lists whose primary purpose is to list needed articles; that is not the case here. The primary purpose is to serve as an index/table of contents of articles cross-referenced to each performer's pseudonyms.
 * Brevity is not among my talents. I've made many of these arguments over and over in many different places, here they are again along with my responses to some newer objections. &mdash; Chidom   talk   05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Chidom. This one's a no-brainer. SirSam972 05:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it was the #94 most viewed page of the month of April so far: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.88.17 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * That's an interesting statistic indeed, but not at all relevent to the debate. --kingboyk 10:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. I don't think Chidom has missed anything, so I won't belabor those points. If there's any serious challenge to Chidom's analysis, let me know on my talk page so I can consider it. — coe l acan — 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chidom. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wow, chidom really wants to keep this. Fortunately his evidence is strong. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do, however, think it could do with a cleanup. The introduction section, with the exception of the last sentence, should be deleted entirely. All the instructions, for example, should be invisible - this is an encyclopedia, not a DIY manual. Although Chidom says it has been carefully worded not to give that appearance, it seems obvious to me, as I'm sure it does to many people, that it has been written to fend off other Wikipedians, not to add to the article. A paragraph on criteria in the lead would suffice for readers - anything else can be moved to talk or deleted. Similarly, the self-ref links in the see also section should be removed under WP:SELF. I get why you probably added them, but I think writing a form message to people who attack the article would better than writing a below-par article. All the external links should be turned into references, and ideally the entire article should be in table format - Celithemis has a script which can autmatically convert lists into tables, should you wish to contact her. I really appreciate the work that has gone into this list, but it needs a little more polish. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done a major rewrite of the opening portion of the article, largely in part to quiet the continuing dissatisfaction with what are perceived to be self-references. My attempt was to have only the link to the talk page and the links to the other Wikipedia articles be the remaining self-references on the page. There is a template selfref to be used on self-references that allows other users of this information to omit them from versions published elsewhere; it was employed on all of those. The guideline says they are to be avoided, not that they should never be used. There's nothing wrong with stating for the reader what was required in order for a name to be included on the list—and doing so in detail isn't the crime some apparently think it is.


 * Much of the introduction comes from my experience here with regard to editors who insist on reading this as a list of gay men even though the information that it's not has been at the top of the article since August 2005. That's the biggest reason the article was renamed. Another issue to arise recently has been the attempt to include performers who have never been in a porn film; only on websites or in magazines.


 * The rest of the verbiage was a direct result of the decison reached by consensus about sourcing names individually, a decision I still disagree with. Part of the reason for the expanding lead section was to inform those who had missed (or skipped) the long debate about the new requirements for adding a name to the list.


 * As for "fending off" other Wikipedians, I don't think you can possibly imagine the amount of vandalism done to this article (mostly by non-registered users, but requests to have it permanently semi-protected have been denied). On one particular day, there were 23 separate "attacks" that had to be reverted; it couldn't be done automatically as legitimate additions were mixed in with the vandalism. Since the addition/revision of the introduction to the article, there has been less vandalism. Every addition that isn't obvious vandalism still has to be checked, with or without a linked source (gee, some people add bogus links!). If the verification isn't done, an edit war may ensue with their addition/removal. Names of valid performers who don't merit articles are being retained in the list in invisible comments to document the validation. Hopefully one of the results of the new requirement for sourcing will be a permanent reduction in the amount of vandalism.


 * The article is being converted into a table behind the scenes. The links aren't in a list of references because that would result in a list of references literally thousands of lines long. The references would be too far removed from the performer's listing to be useful or relevant. The links will be in their own column headed "References" in the table version; that should make it more obvious what the links are for and have them remain useful. Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   06:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The porn industry is only (ahem) getting bigger and having accurate information will help in tracking these actors as their fame and influence grows. I feel we should have this echo what is going on in the mainstream movie stars sections. It's a shame that vandalism happens at all and kinda sad that sex is seen as something other than a vital part of life and worthy of negative actions.Benjiboi 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Please keep this info available in this format. As has been stated before, the AKA is really useful, the URL info provides the references needed. Of course it is not complete - nothing of this sort will ever be complete, but neither will Wikipedia. There is too little of this type of information available and, unfortunately, you would be very hard pushed to find it in the standard mainstream works. Brian UK 02:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant. The category is enough. If its purpose is to cross-reference performer's pseudonyms, this can be better done by redirecting pseudonyms to the performer's article. Epbr123 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read Categories, lists, and series boxes to better understand why this needs to be a list and not a category. They are not redundant; the information here cannot be displayed in a category—only existing articles can be categorized, and this list's secondary purpose is to provide a list of articles that need to be written, per Lists. &mdash; Chidom   talk   07:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the article should be moved to WikiProject space. Epbr123 08:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Barely masked advertising and link spam. Futurix 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone is welcome to replace the links to the commercial sites with other reliable sources. The links were originally invisible comments to avoid any accusations of "link spam"; the consensus was that they needed to be visible. Reliable sources for this topic are difficult to come by, these were the most expedient and were never meant to be advertising, only links to information about a performer. If you follow the links, they are to videographies, not to individual products. &mdash; Chidom   talk   07:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No matter how you will twist the intent of the article - the fact will remain that it is effectively a giant advertising and link spam. Your admission of earlier invisibility of the links makes it even worse - hidden links are typical of link spam. As for the "videographies" - they all are lists of the products, and in many cases individual products can be bought with just one additional click. Futurix 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question I would like to know, why many of your links are for the affiliate 2301 in the TLA shop? Do you make any profit from that or would you like to pretend it was honest mistake? Futurix 08:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I was hiding the links to avoid cluttering up the page and my intent was to not have them be accessible by the vast majority of users. When they were invisible comments, in order for them to be of use they had to be copied and pasted in the user's browser; I argued against making them visible and live.
 * As for the affiliate numbers—it is an honest mistake, I do not have an affiliate account with tla. I'm sure the proliferation is because I use one of the existing links in the article to open the tla site in another window to search in. The urls that I find apparently have the number embedded in them. to access the site to search for videographies and the number is propagated in every link I copy thereafter. I was totally unaware that there were affiliate numbers embedded in the links; I will remove them all. &mdash; Chidom   talk   21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether link is visible or hidden does not matter for the purposes of link spamming. Besides - hiding link spam from human readers is such a common thing at spam websites, that obviously it is very suspicious. Futurix 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You may also want to see the discussion about this here. &mdash; Chidom   talk   06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw this, and I'm amazed at your continuous refusal to understand that tlavideo profiteers from your linking. And your allegations of homophobia are stupid. Futurix 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep We have decided against categories "films by actor" and against templates with actor filmographies. Lists are the most advisable alternative (in most of the deletion discussions) and create the least clutter. Hoverfish Talk 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you propose deleting the gay porn star category then? Epbr123 08:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is a cat crossing of films by actor, yes, as there is such a decision at WP:Films. But I am not sure about videos that have never been released in theaters. We are currently trying to clear out what comes under our project and what not. If we decide that videos are not part of Films, then it's out of my field to say. Hoverfish Talk 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove all non-notable pornstars from the list. Persons on it should either have their own article or have reliable sources confirming their notability. We should not indiscriminately list all gay porn stars. WjBscribe 15:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm arbitrarily basing the inclusion of the performers on the size of their videographies, which isn't an accurate yardstick at all, but it's something. The guideline is that there is a "reasonable expectation" that there will be an article in the future. It is not unreasonable to expect that someone with a lengthy videography will meet notability requirements. There is an article on a performer here who was in exactly one film—his notability stems from the fact that he was well-known for having won a bodybuilding title beforehand. Once again an attempt is being made to apply a more stringent standard to a porn-related article than to those with less controversial subjects. &mdash; Chidom   talk   21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We already have a good yardstick for inclusion of pornstars on Wikipedia. Its called WP:PORNBIO. I don't think performers who don't meet that standard belong on the list. WjBscribe 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere is it required that any name on any list be proven to meet notability standards before they're put on the list; the guideline for a list is that there is a reasonable expectation that they will qualify for an article. A robust videography is an indicator that there is a reasonable expectation that the person will qualify. WP:PORNBIO is applicable to articles, not to lists. If it turns out that an article meeting notability requirements can't be written about a performer on the list, they can be removed. The amount of research required to evaluate the performer with regard to WP:PORNBIO or other notability guidelines is not a requirement for them to be listed; if that were the case, there would never be any lists. When that much reasearch is done, a stub article can be written. (Very carefully, by the way—gay porn stubs are summarily deleted while still being actively edited just because the first thing on the page wasn't the information establishing their notability.) One point of having the list is so that the research and drafting of articles can be divided among many editors. &mdash; Chidom   talk   05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on LinkSpam: Can anyone recommend a better WP:RS for providing a reference to the fact that a particular performer was in a gay porn film? As has been discussed on the list's talk page, vendors are the only ones we've found so far. If anyone can provide a better one, I'll be happy to change the links to that. Until then, this is the only way we have of avoiding BLP and providing a reliable citation. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (or Delete) - who cares anymore? When I first discovered the 'List of Gay Porn Stars' it was a useful link to the articles. It's now become 'who can be more wiki than the other'. The articles are still there on a general search so who really needs this page. I had been tempted to add some articles (especially as some of the more notable, prolific and longer-lasting actors weren't included)but can't be bothered in getting into a turf-war with people more interested in style than substance.

PS To satyrTN - yes, plenty of other reliable sources - you've been given some, I could be one but you seem determined that we only have commercial sources. I feel sorry for Chidom who seems to have been forced to do things against his better judgment just to keep the page going. Cannonmc 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm really undecided about this. Most of the concerns that have been raised about this list can be easily remedied, but others can't. Most of the references point to the same web site. We should try to diversify our sources as much as possible. My own concern is (since a lot of the actors are known by several different names, and we may never know the real name for many of them), is that any two lines on the list could contain separate sets of pseudonyms for the same actor, possibly making the population of the list seem much greater than it actually is. Thoughts? — CharlotteWebb 13:28, 18 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.