Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th 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 no consensus, default to keep.

To begin with, the rough headcount is two thirds in favor of keeping, so we have no manifest consensus to delete and an apparent near consensus to keep.

I must, however, examine whether there is a "delete" argument that, under applicable policy, clearly outweighs the "keep" arguments or even mandates deletion. I find that this is not so. The principal "delete" argument (with which a majority of contributors disagrees) is that the list is highly vulnerable to

Finally, the "keep" majority view, while not generally very well argued, is not so poorly presented that it must be given sufficiently little weight so as to be outweighed by the "delete" minority. We have, therefore, no consensus to delete this list, and it is kept by default.  Sandstein  08:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much better implemented as a category. This list is silly and continues to present

• Why is it better as a category? Polarpanda (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not, lists and categories are to complement each other. A category only lists articles that already exists and gives no other information. This list is in the middle of a lengthy needed overhaul that I started five months ago.
    -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- "B-b-b-b-but it would be a better category!" is not a reason for deletion. BLP issues can be dealt with by editing, there is absolutely no reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I looked over the previous four AfDs for this, more than I've ever seen for any other article, and can offer no better-reasoned or better-phrased argument than that of
  assume good faith, but surely there must be topics that could benefit more from the time and effort involved in the AfD process. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment if kept, should this be renamed "List of performers in gay porn films" since having "male" and "gay" would be redundant (in the sense that no females can be gay, only lesbian)? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because all males, including transmen and dragqueens who appear in gay porn films, are not actually gay, some are bisexual, questioning or even gay-for-pay.
    -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete as per nom. This list was deleted after the initial AFD, and the consensus regarding successor articles, more than once, was to keep only so long as the list was limited to performers verified as notable by reliably sourced articles. It's now a gigantic redlink farm with several entries identified at BLPN as obviously linked to articles on different individuals known by similar names. A ridiculous number of the entries have unreliable sources -- blogs, imdb, promotional retailer/producer pages, etc. It's become clear that the list isn't going to be properly maintained, and that the failure to properly maintain the list spawns major BLP problems. The problems are much more manageable if only the category is kept, and navigational aids can easily be generated as needed by using increasingly fine-grained categories. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists and categories work together as noted above and previous 4th AfD. Also sourcing issues are being addressed but if any actual BLP problem - as opposed to general alarm or "concern" - exists then please note it on the talk page and I will fix it of no one else does. Also redlinks are there to show which performers we do have articles for as well as those we do not - we include them to specify them as distinct from articles of the same name that do exist. People adding wikilinks to teh wrong article has been an issue. Semi-protection may be a good option but the volume of vandalism doesn't seem to rise to that level.
    -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Such a list is clearly a BLP disaster magnet, and we should depart from our usual "if it can be maintained" standards. "If" is not good enough. First off, if kept, a list like this must be protected against vandalism. Secondly, it must have people who will promise to consistently maintain it, people trusted by editors to have high standards and through understanding of Wikipedia sourcing. If we can't get such a group of editors whom we can trust, then delete (see below) will be the way it goes for me. I'll look in on this discussion from time to time. Ray^Talk 00:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don;t see that. It is limited to notable performers, nd their inclusion in it must be justified in the article on them. if there are sufficient sources for giving their role, there are sufficient for the list. People added without there being Wikipedia articles can be removed easily enough, as for all such lists where BLP or spam are real possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but since when do we delete things because they MIGHT be difficult? Should we not be

assuming good faith? Umbralcorax (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Good faith in each and every editor I interact with is not quite the same as boundless, Kellogg-Briand Pact levels of optimism in their omnipotence and perfection. Given that this is the 5th AfD on the subject, I think a touch of skepticism on our ability to maintain such a list without BLP violations is not out of order. Ray^Talk 04:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have been cleaning this article for five months but if someone would like to join forces and proves to know what they are doing i would love to collaborate, I hope to get this to featured list but I'm not in a rush.
    -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Change to Keep per Benjiboi's work. I spent some time reviewing it, and it does seem properly sourced - there is immense potential for BLP violation, but actual violations seem to have been minor and dealt with properly. My request for page protection was denied on the grounds that we don't protect articles currently at AfD; I strongly suggest the closing admin indefinitely semiprotect the page to protect from IP vandals and the like. Ray^Talk 21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if and only if the article is reduced to bluelinks and semi-protected indefinitely. The list itself is notable and its presence is encyclopedic, but the content is prone to vandalism and BLP errors. Reducing the article to bluelinks about people known for their performances in porn will help with the BLP issues, as would semi-protection and a rigorous demand for reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 04:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anon vandalism hasn't been unmanagable and there seems no reason to treat this list any different then all other lists on people. If there is any actual problem then civilly point it out on the talkpage and I'll sort it out of no one else does.
    -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep, and unfortunately a trout for nom.

Whack! The WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis) is used to make subtle yet hopefully long-term adjustments to clue levels in experienced Wikipedians.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur that given the subject matter, the BLP concerns, and the past history of the article, that it is worthy for deletion. MBisanz ^talk 06:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculous. What few BLP issues may exist are easily fixable by correctly disambiguating, adding sourcing, or if needed removing items as unverifiable. We don't delete entire lists because a problem might exist, show what items are actually a problem and fix those, normal editing can address these issues much as they do on every other BLP.
    -- Banjeboi 06:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Per Benjobi.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And, I might add, this was closed a "keep" just months ago. There should be a rule against renominations of keeps so quickly -- if at all.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - due to the BLP problems that have been documented at the BLP noticeboard. Yes, normally we should not delete when there are problems with an article that can theoretically be fixed, but for good reasons BLP should and are an exception. From the article history I do not see much effort has gone into maintaining this list (understandably given the size of the list and the multitude of references that would have to be checked individually) in the past, so given this, the past deletion discussions, and given the way Wikipedia works the only likely outcome is that this list will remain a BLP nightmare. Pantherskin (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. Over the past five months 200+ references have been added and the majority of items vetted. Declaring that problems can only be "theoretically" fixed is sheer foolishness. Systematically every item has to be checked, claiming there simply must be problems is vague and quite misleading. Items are given context and sources and this has been taking place since the last AfD five months ago when the list was no more than a list of names with a lede. The references there are not the issue, the only ones that need to be backed up are IMDb - and even those are likely acceptable to show a stage name is used in gay porn - so the only entries to cause concern are the ones with no context or sourcing. Claiming BLP is a serious issue that needs to be backed up with regular editing to fix any items that are found to be problematic. That deletion of the entire list is even considered suggests this is reactionary and not based in sound editing or policy.
    -- Banjeboi 08:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Wow. Wow. Simply astonished at your diatribe and your distortions. I strongly suggest that you retract this reply. That the BLP issues are still not resolved five months after the latest AfD supports my point. Pantherskin (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every BLP issue that has ever been pointed out has been resolved, that others might exist likely means it's a big list. If you have a particular BLP item please fix it by adding sources or tag it as needing sources, etc. If you're unwilling to do the work please don't disparage those that are.

-- Banjeboi

That is simply not true. Yes, some issues has been resolved, but that is besides the point, as this article has continually created new issues that typically remained unresolved for months, what is simply not acceptable given the serious BLP violations. If this would be the first or second AfD, I guess then it would be reasonable to hope that in the future more attention is paid to these issues, that this has not happened after the fourth AfD means only that there a few doubts that it will remain a BLP violations magnet. Pantherskin (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what is false is the idea that "this article has continually created new issues that typically remained unresolved for months". I have personally vetted everything that has been added since I started clean-up and there were indeed some vandalism which was found to be lacking merit and simply removed. Little of it has remained for more than days. And every article is subject to some vandalism, if this one seems to be getting too much we simply look to see if semi protect is needed. I think if it were requested now it would be denied as there just hasn't been that much.

-- Banjeboi 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. If the list was made into a category, or if we required all the red links to be removed, someone is likely to create articles on all the currently red-linked performers, as nearly all seem to pass WP:PORNBIO. This would create bigger maintenance and BLP problems overall. Epbr123 (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On some of the individual bios we currently have I have been recommending merge until a stand-alone article could be called for. This is exactly how lists keep this information in check.
    -- Banjeboi 08:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - for all the valid reasons listed in the previous 4 nominations. Any person on the list incorrectly sourced can easily be removed, if that is the BLP objection. What a waste of time re-nominating.—Ash (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't get the "waste of time" argument. Nobody's obligated to participate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it contains useful information, and a category cannot be properly watchlisted. It would seem that there is not a similar list as informative as this anywhere on the Internet. I also agree with all of the above keep !votes. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, despite the fact that the list presents many problems and challenges. I simply can't find a solid, policy-based reason to delete. The page will clearly require significant patrolling and maintenance, but it contains verifiable and potentially useful information which merits inclusion. Doc Tropics 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• BLP problems? I look at the talk page, and all I see there since August is a discussion over whether it should have an image, and what the image should be. I do see that there are a number of people listed without articles, but in each case a suitable reason is given --generally an award that would presumably qualify them for an article. Checking a few, it is not the case that they had articles, but the articles were deleted. Strange--I was under the impression that this was one area where we had fairly comprehensive coverage. We seem to have more work to do in writing articles than I thought, DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been a concerted effort to first stub then delete content/articles in this area. After all the awards have been added I was going to start looking through more scholarly efforts as the awards tend to be a bit U.S. and major-studio -centric. Then each entry could be better seen for which entries likely should have an article next. This is especially true for early stars who certainly meet notability but no one has really dug in, or for those that have helped shape the industry like
    -- Banjeboi 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Per
      WP:BLP - "Article improvement to a neutral, high-quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Per
      WP:SALAT - "Lists of people must follow Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people. For example, care must be taken when adding people to the list of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and must be sourced reliably." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Per
      WP:LSC - "Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • You should know this but here goes, (i) No one has mentioned any dubious material yet but if the topic is brought up on the talk page likely it can be addressed; (ii) No one's suggesting we should violate BLP in any way and obviously a listing here places no one in a category of actually being LGBT; (iii) No one's using this as a clean-up guide, instead this is becoming the parent article to see where gaps in our coverage are and to see what standards could be set for what would be considered notable list inclusion; likely we'll end up with several paths to inclusion depending on when the person was active.
        -- Banjeboi 02:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep - five nominations?! Jeez. Not every category deserves a list, but this one does, as it can be used to present much more info than the category - year of debut, nationality, awards etc. GiantSnowman 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with a barnstar to ben for all of his work on this article. Instead of putting the article up for deletion, why not solve those potential BLP issues?
  talk) 23:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - This is an interesting and important list. Keraunos (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important how? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break

• Keep Award winning or otherwise important pornographic actors are listed here. If the proper term is pornographic, not porn, then shouldn't the name be changed though? Dream Focus 23:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now there have been claims of ongoing BLP problems that for months haven't been addressed. If that is the case, I might change my mind, but I'd want to see an example or two and the deletion side has yet to provide any as far as I can tell. Anyone? Hobit (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Matt. @Kate (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - major BLP concerns and there is no need for there to be a list on this when categories more than suffice. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please demonstrate what major BLP problems exist rather than "major BLP concerns", also categories only list an article title with no contextual information so not only do we lose any listing that doesn't have an article we also lose all the context that
    -- Banjeboi 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Note that I am not the nom here, will not be !voting here, and don't necessarily think the list should be deleted. I am concerned by the BLP issues which I have laid out here (and please don't turn this AfD into a rehash of that thread, Benjiboi). The idea that this article is actually providing information not available throgh categories seems to be predicated on some other list or perhaps an idealised version of this list. Additional categories may be required -- such as
      List of pornographic actresses by decade, the most closely analogous female porn performer article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Odd, you seem to be locked in a loop, going over the same arguments again and again. After my first edit on this list, you immediately welcomed me with several of the same questions (diff), in particular the issue of login which I answered on my talk page. Perhaps
        WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has some guidance that might help you?—Ash (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I didn't agree with your characterization of product pages on commercial porn sites as reliable sources, or your contention that it was reasonable to link to porn sites which require login credentials. It was clear from your response that any further discussion would be a waste of my time. BLPs require more care than usual in choosing appropriate sources - BLPs which label the subjects as gay porn performers doubly so. The policies and guidelines are very clear on this, but it seems editors are not inclined to work on these articles to bring them into conformance. This is likely the reason why there have been so many AfDs for this list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The BLP issue, that we claim Johnny Foo as a performer in gay porn is immediately answered by linking to his own porn page or his bio/page on one of the porn companies. It would be better to replace those with more neutral sources but to appease BLP we are indeed ensuring we remain compliant. If you honestly think a gay porn actors own page is not a reliable source that he indeed is a gay porn actor then maybe the good folks at RSN can help clear that up. There really was no need for any AfDs for this list beyond #4 when the article started to undergo sourcing to comply with BLP concerns. That overhaul has continued for five months now and will continue long after this discussion closes. Your characterizing of all editors working on hundreds of articles as unwilling to abide policies is disingenuous at best. I've yet to see an article on gay male pornography that hasn't gone through drama similar to what you seem to offer where content is deleted and then restored with sourcing and policy-based reasoning. As far as I can tell your sole contribution in this area is to work at deleting content and articles forcing other editors to address your concerns no matter what the motivation. It seems disruptive to me.
            -- Banjeboi 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
      • Yes, Ash has pretty much called it. This is very much sky is falling BLP! BLP! Why wouldn't we re-hash that BLP thread, or the ANI one before that? This all started because you seem to want to remove/diminish an image of
        -- Banjeboi 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Benjiboi, please strike your remarks. Calling me "lazy" and once again implying that I am a homophobe are clear personal attacks. As is your repeated claim that I edit-warred over an image (which the article history will show that you were the one reverting multiple editors to restore). I'm here to comment on the issues raised in this AfD, not to bicker with you. Incidentally, you may wish to check the credit on that image - unless you know that Commons user "I Smell Beaver" is yet another of David Shankbone's alternate accounts, the image has nothing to do with him. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again you are the only one bringing up homophobia - but it seems like the fourth thread you've done so. And you know very well which image I mean and it remains your edit-war. As for lazy there likely is a better word or turn of phrase. I mean to state that although you claim BLP concern about wikilinks pointing to the wrong person - which is easily fixable - you have shown "a disinclination to work or to take trouble" to fix the problem you seem to think is important enough for two admin threads and now the AfD discussion. You seem to be very inspired to delete content on gay male pornography but completely disinclined to ensure our coverage of it is thorough or comprehensive in any way. If there is a better explanation than that or a more accurate word than lazily correcting BLP concerns I'm very open it.
            -- Banjeboi 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • This is an AfD, not ANI. You are welcome to leave your comments on my talkpage. Please strike your personal attacks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Checking the discussion here and considering the guidance of
                WP:PA, I don't believe the word "lazy" used in this context would be considered a personal attack. Perhaps you should have a nice cup of tea and a sit down instead?—Ash (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
                ]

• Keep While appreciating that the nom showed good faith in his thought that consensus might have changed in the few months since the article's last keep, consensus has not (yet) changed. The notability shown then has not declined. The arguments toward it being a problem article only require care and a good watch. Surmountable issues do not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I worked on maintaining this article for a while, which at the time mostly meant deleting redlinks. ("Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles"). As long as the list is carefully maintained it isn't a problem. OTOH, I think this material is covered in other databases so the information wouldn't disappear if were deleted from here.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other databases are still not Wikipedia, are generally not as reliable, neutral, dispassionate and are much more likely to be commercially related or biased. We can help set a higher bar for material that generally avoids all those issues while adding encyclopedic context including links to other articles. Additionally I'm more and more convinced that once a conscientious overhaul has taken place we'll be more readily able to see some of the gaps of coverage we may have in this area. Since many involved in the industry are known to be Internet friendly we may even win over a few editors to being good Wikipedians.
    -- Banjeboi 19:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete - listcruft in the extreme & a BLP nightmare. References would have to be extensive and impeccable - they haven't been, though - Allie ^❤ 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain better how this is either
    -- Banjeboi 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Sure. From Wikipedia:Listcruft#Meaning, it is my opinion that this list meets points 6, 7, 9 and definitely 11. Also marginally, points 2 and 8 - Allie ^❤ 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, let's look at those now:

6. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable

This is hardly true, it's being maintained presently and as the clean-up continues we'll probably lean on

WP:Pornbio

to help delineate what parameters should apply to which performers - likely by time frame as sourcing and awards differ greatly over time periods. Also the industry has greatly changed so someone who is not very notable may have plenty of coverage now whereas a superstar in the 1980s may have very little coverage available online.

7. The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category

You seem to be looking at a different list completely if all you see are wikilinks already in the category.

9. Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available.

Already demonstrated as untrue although sourcing will remain an issue, I'm convinced that many names will continue to try to be added so the lede will have to adjust to define inclusion. We clearly aren't there yet but i don't believe anyone claimed we were.

11. The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.

Also untrue, there is a disproportionate effort right now but only because of what seems to be a concerted effort to target this cntent. No worries - our coverage of gay porn will indeed be improved because of all this attention.

2. The list is of interest to a very limited number of people

I hope you're kidding on this one, this subject is obviously of interest but some page stats could help clear up if anyone is indeed looking atthe page.

8. The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.

On traditional encyclopedias? Possibly not but a good encyclopedia certainly would.

-- Banjeboi 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, most likely. 6) The list has been shown to be unmaintainable. That's why we're back here now. Lots of promises last time & no action. It accumulates cruft & unreferenced BLP problems. 7) It's a bunch of links and redlinks. A category would work better. Merge the repeated stuff back into the main BLPs. Job done! 9) Sourcing is a massive issue and you're understating the problem here. We need to be "there yet" as this is a BLP nightmare. I suggest all unreferenced entries be excised immediately and future ones get removed if unreferenced. No 'getting there' - not with biographical articles like this. 11) Speaks for itself. The article will need constant monitoring & right now, about 130 people are watching it - mostly due to this AfD. Not enough as the number of active editors will be waaayyy less than this. 2) Not kidding. It's niche. 8) It's unencyclopedic. On traditional encyclopedias? Definitely. On Wikipedia - yes, IMO - Allie ^❤ 05:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly disagree. 6) "Lots of promises last time & no action" is patently false, any look at the article history over the last five months shows at least 500 edits 7) "It's a bunch of links and redlinks." is also patently false. The vast majority of entries list and source accomplishments of each performer to indicate why they are included 9) This remains yet not a BLP nightmare at all, the big concern was a wikilink pointing to the wrong person, that happens all the time and is being fixed; unreferenced entries are being looked at, as of yet I think I've found exactly one that I couldn't easily find sourcing to indicate they had, in fact, been a performer in gay porn. 11) "The article will need constant monitoring" - every article needs constant monitoring, one each entry has been vetted that becomes even easier; semi-protection was declined as the vandalism has been insignificant. And it only takes one editor, but there have been quite a few reverting vandalism - we have yet to establish that certain editors or a set number of editors have to watch certain articles; this one should be treated the same as all others regarding vandalism; 2) "It's niche." would be a reason to merge to a larger list if this niche wasn't such a massive industry. If this were a sub-list like list of male performers in gay bondage porn films you may have a case, but no. 8) "It's unencyclopedic. On traditional encyclopedias? Definitely. On Wikipedia - yes, IMO" You seem to be contradicting yourself here but plenty of editors disagree with you on this so it may not need belabouring. Thank you for sharing your opinion though.

-- Banjeboi 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Benjiboi, it might be illustrative to look at the "clean-up" statistics on a monthly basis rather than in the aggregate. The previous AfD was in July 2009. There were 266 edits that month, likely inspired by the AfD itself. In August there were 37 edits. There were 27 edits in September and 37 edits in October. It wasn't until this AfD and my posting at the BLP noticeboard that there was any serious effort made to even verify that the links actually pointed to gay porn performers. I found half a dozen without even trying. I'm sorry, but your promises to clean up the article have not resulted in an improvement, but a larger problem. I have not undertaken to fix this myself because of your ownership issues and your personal animus against me.

Judging from you edits to completely unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs, you do not seem to have a firm grasp of the policy. You shouldn't be adding to unsourced BLPs, you should be asking for them to be userfied or deleted until you can find references. Articles you have edited very recently like Paul Carrigan, Nick Harmon, Pierre Fitch should likely be stubbed until better sources can be found. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention to gay pornography is indeed commendable, we likely wouldn't have this AfD at all if your alarmist threads at both ANI and BLP didn't occur. As for me doing routine clean-up on an article? First off please - for the fifth time - please leave me alone and stop following me around - it's

-- Banjeboi 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In this AfD alone, Benjiboi has stated half a dozen times that they have been cleaning up this list for 5 months. That claim is simply not supported by the history of the article. A concern was raised on the talk page about a link pointing to the wrong person, but remained unaddressed for almost two months during his alleged clean up. How did that bad link get there? Benjiboi did it! The editor that is supposedly cleaning it up! For four months, we told readers that a Canadian football player was a gay porn performer. Several people here have commented that their keep votes are predicated on the idea that there the article will actually be cleaned up and watched over. I'm not advocating deletion of this article, but no one should be under any illusion that it will differ significantly from the way it is now unless they make it happen. I offered to start a working group to resolve some of the BLP issues, but no one took me up on it. It is clear that Benjiboi would prefer that I stay away from it, so I am. For now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A category would cover this quite nicely and would make BLP issues much less worrisome. AniMate 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been addressed already, a category only list the actual titles of articles within a category and, obviously only those that already exist. The existence of either does not negate the need for the other nor do they duplicate each other. That should be fairly obvious in this case.
    -- Banjeboi 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete It seems every time this is nominated for deletion, people will say it's managable/can be fixed. Yet several months later, we're back discussing the same issues. As others have mentioned this is a BLP nightmare and quite listcrufty. The fact that over 50% of the entries in the list are red links so the extend of the problem. If this is kept, all redlinks should be removed, as is done with other problematic lists on wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I started fixing it last time - 5 months ago - and everyone agreed that the issues were indeed resolvable. The list has been continually cleaned up since then and we are making a sincere effort to make it a good and eventually featured list. That redlinks exist means that we are woefully lacking coverage in this area. If you actually dispute any of these performers have been in gay porn films please make a note on the talkpage so the issue can be looked at.
    -- Banjeboi 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment - Several editors have taken on the task to ensure each listing directs to the correct article or add a disambiguation if not, we are roughly 2/3 done over the last few days.
  -- Banjeboi 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - this list is over 170k long!!! Good grief! %-/ - Allie ^❤ 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be including html, once all the drama moves on a clean-up aspect will have to address breaking it down into several smaller lists although it seems premature until we actually clean-up and remove entries that likely don't belong here and add ones that do.
    -- Banjeboi 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep and take to FL. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but immediately remove all unsourced entries. Only replace them once
  reliable sources have been found. There should be no unsourced entries here at all. LadyofShalott 07:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There's only a handful that I'm aware that don't have either sources or articles. Once the wikilink clean-up has completed I intend to ensure every entry is sourced or hidden/removed. Part of the issue is ongoing maintenance, we need to develop some criteria that are logical and intuitive so when someone wants to add something we can match it up to see if it meets inclusion. Likely a list on the talkpage of removed entries will collect some of those so we don't have to re-review every few months for repeat customers.

• I just counted four with no bluelink or citation, a small number, but they must be removed (which I am about to do). Also entries removed do not belong on the talk page for the same BLP reasons they don't belong in the list. I also find the results listed below of Hullabaloo's analysis troubling. We need impeccable sourcing for a list such as this. LadyofShalott 19:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I have now removed those four entries. LadyofShalott 19:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This issue remains however that entries may be removed for not being notable but still might be male performers in gay porn films thus they wouldn't be any BLP violations. Similarly, if someone means to add for instance John Foo, We simply have a list of people removed who show either no involvement in the industry and/or no demonstration they notability guidelines. That would certainly not violate BLP.
  -- Banjeboi 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep and clean up.
  BLP issues are fixable, and the list exposes a lack of coverage that categories would not. Would the information be better presented in a sortable table (stage name, name, awards, details)? --Clifflandis (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Probably not although that is still in consideration. Some of the entries descriptions are rightfully larger and that diminishes the usefulness of such a table. The other issue is the many performers who use multiple names including single names. Alphasorting by last name is more standard on Wikipedia but the industry seems to favor listing by first name; we'll also have to cross-reference the a.k.a. names. The main problem with a table remains that the descriptions will always be lengthy in some cases which would seem to make it impractical.
    -- Banjeboi 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete It looks like every man who was ever credited for appearing in gay porn is featured here, which is not encyclopedic. BLP issues are flagrant, and
  talk) 03:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hardly ever man involved ... but believe what you will and the category issue has been addressed several times already.
    -- Banjeboi 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment. Despite the frequently-made claim that the article has been substantially cleaned up and properly referenced, major BLP and RS issues remain, probably more than at the time of the previous AFD. For example,
  • 23 items are cited to message board posts (ref 12, 36, 290, as of current revision)
  • 62 items are cited to the "Adam Gay Video 2004 Directory," a low-rent pornographic publication of no demonstrated reliability
  • more than 30 items are cited to imdb, and most of these are the only citations for the listed name
  • about a dozen items are cited to the unreliable iafd
  • 24 items are cited to the "Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory"
  • 39 items are cited to the "Adam Gay Video 1999 Directory"
  • 14 items are cited to pages on the Lucas Entertainment retailer website
  • 10 items are cited to a list of "awards" given by an online columnist identified only as "Onan The Vulgarian"
  • 4 items are cited to the National Enquirer (ref 104)
  • 1 item is cited to a self-characterized "male escort review" site (ref 144)
  • 18 items are cited to retail pages or other promotional material for Bel Ami Films
  • 6 items are cited to retail pages for Falcon Studios
  • Other sources failing WP:RS include retail site AEBN, used magazine retail sites, retail site tlavideo.com, retail site nakedsword.com, at least half a dozen blogs (eg gaypornblog, thugofalltrades), and the menatplay retail site. The lack of reliable sourcing is endemic.
  • Although the list is supposedly limited to notable article subjects, many of the entries have no sources evidencing notability under the applicable specialty guideline, and users involved in maintaining the article are inconsistently arguing at AFD that content for subjects who fail the notability guidelines should be merged into this article.
    
• BLP issues remain rampant; many of the alternate names and identifications listed are either completely unsourced or manifestly unreliably sourced. Note, for example, the listing of the independently notable František Huf, who is identifed as performer "Boris Tomek" even though that claim has never been sourced; an imdb page not mentioning Huf is provided as a "reference." It is, of course, possible that Huf could turn out to be Tomek, but it's also clear that no one has ever provided a source actually associating the two -- the most basic requirement for making the relevant claim, both here and in the individual article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These remain sourcing issues but are routine clean-up. Linking to a porn site where someone's name is confirmed to indeed be performing in gay porn would indicate that in fact they do thus addressing BLP concern. And those "non-notable" awards listings do exactly the same.
    -- Banjeboi 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• And more Roughly 20 names on the list are cited as notable because they have won something called the "Dave" Award; in about half the cases this appears to be the only claim to notability. The "Dave" Award, it turns out, is "awarded" by a single non-notable reviewer in a non-notable minor pornographic magazine. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't this analysis be better moved to
    RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source as this particular catalogue is the most widely used reference called into question.—Ash (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I don't think so, but if you want to, feel free to copy it over there. One of the issues here is whether the list is properly maintained to avoid BLP/RS problems, and the post addresses that directly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      This is good work, and I understand that you want it to be visible here. But this page is already very long and creates problems (see my talk page), so it would be better to keep it only in the most appropriate place and refer to that from here.

      I also understand if you are frustrated that earlier issues have not been fixed. To keep it fair, we would have to search for them in the old AfD discussion, and assess whether they have been fixed now. We also need an agreement on which sources count as

      WP:RS. That can't be done in the normal time for an AfD. A cleaner and more feasible alternative seems to me to start a list of clear conditions now and set an ultimatum - say 3 months - for these to be addressed. After that time, we can ask ArbCom to assess if these are indeed fixed, and based on that assessment the article will be deleted or stays. How does that sound? — Sebastian 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

      ]

      • I don't see any reason to move it elsewhere, because it speaks directly to an issue raised by the nominator -- whether this navigational guide is "better implemented as a category." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Which has already been addressed that it obviously couldn't - entries are here that don't have articles yet but obviously could. What remains is routine clean-up.

          -- Banjeboi 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

          ]

          • No, it hasn't. It's been argued about and danced around, but the main issue hasn't been resolved. This isn't a matter for "routine cleanup"; if we actually did routine BLP cleanup, most of this list would be deleted. The "cleanup" since the last AFD has included a substantial increase in the amount of unacceptably sourced content, promotional linking, and general ignoring of the relevant notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • Actually it has, lists and categories do not negate the need for each other - they work in tandem and complement one another. In addition there are folks who certainly are notable enough but simply, IMHO, don't yet need an article. For them a list i sideal as we simply note why they are notable and allow that an article could someday be written about them. And yes, every concern mentioned is routine clean-up (fixing wikilinks, tightening the lede, better sourcing, etc) these are things that are addressed through regular editing. And "promotional" websites can indeed be reliable sources and they certainly aren't being used in a "promotional" way. This is a massive list so the cleaning up is going in waves with the first wave to note which performers have been recognized with awards and when were they active as performers. As you may guess this would help point out who was considered notable and when. In addition they are the variables that those awards didn't always exist, some have stopped while others have started. Also they tend to be US centric, I haven't yet added the international ones. Meanwhile it's hard to tell the average anon you can't add ____ unless you prove they meet the list requirements as we haven't been be to clearly define who could/could not be allowed for the above reasons. Ergo we have allowed those who are in gay porn but maybe not notable while removing those who there is no indication of gay porn involvement. Then there is the systematic homophobia/pornphobia where content and sources have been deleted on the list or individual articles making everything take longer to verify . Then there is also the systematic bias that finding material abut these subjects which would clearly denote notability is stymied by the lack of archiving the magazines except in more obscure or private collections. For every entry there is an uphill battle to NPOV represent them. I'm convinced it can be done but also that we shouldn't expect everything to happen immediately. It takes time and is being done in good faith with an eye to making it meet the letter and spirit of all relevant policies. Any insinuation that it isn't is misplaced and a little confounding. I have absolutely nothing to gain by adding someone who will later be removed as not meeting the minimum threshold, however there is a lot to gain by coming up with the best parameters for anyone listed here for future entries. Clean-up in volume of course takes time and apparently we're not in a huge rush so over-reacting is not helping anything one way or another.

              -- Banjeboi 23:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

              ]

• Keep I think most of us forget too often the hardworking volunteers who make this whole encyclopedia possible. There is at least one very dedicated editor for this list; we need more people like this. Such discussions take away our best editors' time and motivation. I am confident that a dedicated editor would much rather spend the time weeding out BLP violations and deleting or referencing unreferenced redlinks. — Sebastian 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments here about the clean up effort. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. If this article has indeed undergone 5 months of cleaning, and still contains so many unsourced entries, then it seems it is indeed very hard to maintain. I struck my "keep" vote for now, but am amenable to change it back if this concern is answered. — Sebastian 07:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are actually no unsourced entries - four were removed and the rest have their own articles. The past months have been researching and noting who's won what awards.
      -- Banjeboi 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • OK, so the main question seems to be: What counts as RS? I understand that they are harder to come by in this area, but I don't think Wikipedia should lower its standard here. I'm certainly willing to fight any bias based on
        WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but if we allowed just any sources as references in one area, it would amount to reverse discrimination. As I said above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's list above is a good start for talking about this, but this page is not the right place for such a discussion. I recommend creating a separate page with a table similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources. I think this would be very helpful for a whole range of articles within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, WikiProject LGBT studies, and possibly WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment. — Sebastian 03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I'm not sure about all the applications but I do agree that specifically identifying possible sources specific to gay porn is quite helpful to the pornography project - which seems to mainly not deal with gay porn - and once we work our some notability criteria that may prove helpful posting a page discussing how and where to look would certainly seem useful. I've already started a list but you make a good case that formalizing for others would benefit all.
          -- Banjeboi 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Cool! That's worth a try, so we should keep the list for now. We can revisit the situation when the RS table's done and implemented. How long do you think it'll take? — Sebastian 03:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Are you kidding me? There are several BLP problems with this article, half of the references are shit (blogs, porn sites, etc). Half of the list is redlinked, which goes even further to show that half the people there probable aren't notable enough to pass the BLP policy. There is no reason to not just have a category for something like this.
  ark // 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There actually is and it's been discussed here already. Additionally many of these sources were added simply to show that they indeed were performaers in gay porn thus rendering the BLP "concern" moot. As clean-up continues we'll better able to sort out who still needs to be added or removed based on reliable sourcing.
    -- Banjeboi 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment on the availability of reliable sources. I've begun research on this topic, trying to locate reliable print trade magazines and books so that I can aid in the clean-up effort until consensus is reached. Unfortunately very few libraries have collected trade magazines like
  ISSN 1525-3880, which has a different title in WorldCat). Additionally, I do not think these trade magazines are indexed anywhere, which would mean research would be a slow process. I believe that this reflects more on the attitudes of culture than it does on the value or reliability of the trade magazines. So, reliable trade magazine sources exist, but they are extremely hard to research in depth unless you live near a library that already collects the items. As for books, there are some gay porn actor auto/biographies, as well as some popular and scholarly works on the gay porn industry. However, many gay porn stars who are notable in the field (awards, etc.) may never have their names appear in a book--they may only appear in printed industry trade magazines. All that to say, using reliable web resources (although not ideal) may be the only option for the current time, until someone interested in this topic can get their hands on the print publications. BTW, if anyone has print copies of GayVN just lying around the house, I'd love to borrow them to start my research! --Clifflandis (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do what was done to
  talk) 23:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually that was a miscarriage of process so is a pretty bad example. The AfD and DrV both supported the article remaining yet an eager admin userfied it and I pushed it to incubation. So that was hardly a compromise but it is what it is. The BLP concerns have been greatly inflated when in actuality it was a wikilinking issue pumped up dramatically and IMHO, based off of personal issues having nothing to do with the list itself.
    -- Banjeboi 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That outcome may not be supported by consensus in that case (you might have noted that I !voted to overturn at DRV) but here, where there are much more substantial support for deletion, it is IMO a good compromise.
      talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Here the delete !votes rest on the spurious BLP claims which have been shown to be utterly false. A wikilink? I think we can fix that. Better sourcing and tweaking of the lede? We do that all the time.
        -- Banjeboi 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I was just making a suggestion in the event it is determined that the article cannot stay in mainspace - an issue on which I voice no opinion. My point is that, in that (not so unlikely, IMO) case, incubation would be preferable to outright deletion.
          talk) 04:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]