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. Its clearly snowing Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films[edit]

List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This list appears to be a non-notable intersection between 'actors who have appeared in pornographic films' and 'actors who have appeared in mainstream films' - though 'mainstream' is undefined. The list entirely fails to explain why an actor appearing in these two different genres is of any significance. We don't have a 'list of comedy film actors who have appeared in westerns', so why do we need this list? Where is the evidence from published reliable sources that this particular grouping is in any way noteworthy? It is possible that individual instances of notable pornographic actors appearing in notable non-pornographic films may have recieved coverage (though the list provides precisely zero evidence of this), but that doesn't justify what appears to be little more than fancruft. Even ignoring the many redlinked films named, it could hardly be claimed that the majority of the movies named are major cinematic works, and the parts played by pornographic actors are often minor - how exactly is the fact that Amber Lynn played an unnamed 'party goer' (one of five likewise unnamed) in 52 Pick-Up even remotely of encyclopaedic interest? Why should we care that Sophia Rossi was cast as an unnamed 'porn star' in Bachelor Party Vegas (a film with an article, but no actual evidence of notability itself...)? Possibly the fact that Taylor Wane appeared in the Adam Sandler comedy Little Nicky might possibly be of interest - except that the source cited for this in Wane's article doesn't actually state that she appeared in the film, and neither for that matter does our article on it. The list is an unsourced collection of trivia, and should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Correction to the above - On checking again, I see that the source cited in the Taylor Wane article (IMDb) actually does mention mention a 'Taylor Wayne' (note spelling) as appearing in Little Nicky - as "Blonde fan at baseball game (uncredited)". Whether we should assume that Wayne is indeed Wane, and that IMBb can be a reliable source for an uncredited appearance is of course open to question, though whether we should give two hoots about it one way or another doesn't seem to me to be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close of disruptive nomination per WP:MULTI and WP:POINT - the policy that would govern this nomination is being under hot debate here. Let's wait until policy is clarified before basing decisions on it, and don't add more noise to the heat - if that's a valid English expression. Diego (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even bothered to read the rationale for deletion I gave? Your assertion that this nomination is 'disruptive' is not only entirely unjustified, but frankly disruptive in itself. It should be noted that I raised the notability of the list on the relevant talk page two days ago, with no meaningful response beyond a 'go ahead' from a contributor supporting the list, and vague assertions that WP:PORNBIO justifies it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I presume that, after all these days, you still didn't hear the argument that the sources for the entries in the list are located at the linked articles? You must be in a real hurry if you can't wait until policy settles before wanting to get rid of the evidence. Diego (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has ZERO to do with that issue or argument. Why for the umtenth time is this intersection notable?!? --Malerooster (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being an intersection not noted in reliable sources,and, at best, weakly sourced to the IMDB which does not meet WP:RS Collect (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. There is a ton of other porn related material and lists that can be worked on and improved. I am sorry that people might see this is anti porn, but that misses the point entirely, and it has zero to do with not liking porn or being anti porn, so hopefully that isn't even brought up as a red herring or strawman or whatever you might call it. --Malerooster (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the lack of references and the determination among many editors that references should not be added, this should be deleted as a BLP matter because it is unreferenced, and an unreferenced inclusion on this list is potentially controversial and potentially damaging, personally and professionally. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please not have a rerun of arguments about referencing - that is an issue that can be fixed by editing. The lack of notability of the topic (the reason I nominated the list) is a separate issue, properly dealt with through AfD discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Quoting myself from the article's talk page days ago: "About notability, this list clearly passes the WP:Notability#Stand-alone_lists test (eg., found in five minutes, CNBC, BBC, Yahoo Movies, Backstage Magazine, CNN, Las Vegas Sun)". Then, an intersection which is well-noted in reliable sources. The examples made by the nominator just reflect his bad faith, why he didn't mentioned Sasha Grey starring in Steven Soderbergh's The Girlfriend Experience[1] or James Deen starring in Paul Schrader's The Canyons[2] or Ron Jeremy in a bunch of titles?? Finally, the comparison between adult actors in non-porn films and a list of comedy film actors who have appeared in westerns is just laughable. Cavarrone 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that nominating this article for deletion was done in 'bad faith', why do you advise me to make the nomination? [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a valid rationale it would had been acceptable, but THIS rationale is pure bad faith, as long as it makes misleading examples and comparisons and ignores the sources I pointed you days ago in the talk page. --Cavarrone 19:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can examples from the list be 'misleading'? Do your sources indicate that Taylor Wane's role as "Blonde fan at baseball game (uncredited)" is significant, or don't they? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cavarrone for the links, I appreciate learning more on this. I wouldn't agree with the laughable part though. --Malerooster (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster, I consider the comparison laughable, or if you prefer, ridicolous, because pornography is not a "genre" like comedy, western, horror or drama, it is actually a parallel, well-separated industry from mainstream film industry. Both industries share the same genres but they remain distinct. Professional actors, even the more characterized into a specific genre like John Wayne or Eddie Murphy, all of them regularly span different genres (Murphy starred in action, musicals and sci-fi films, Wayne acted in comedies, war films and crime films) but it is pretty rare they appear in adult films. Pornography has also its genres (there are gonzo, porn comedies, porn horrors, porn romance movies) and porn actors span the different genres as well, within their industry. Cavarrone 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cavarrone, fair enough, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This one is pretty obvious. Porn stars going mainstream is not a random intersection of two categories, it is a notable subject on its own. There is considerable coverage of the intersection between porn and mainstream entertainment by reliable sources ranging from mass media journalism[4] to trade publications,[5] the tabloids,[6] and probably some scholarly or academic sources you look far enough. A list format is useful as a navigational tool, and in fact many of the sources such as the CNN article use list format for illustrative purposes. I can certainly understand that some people think that pop culture, and porn in particular, are worthless subjects. However, there is a lot of interest in the subject as demonstrated by the sources. Notability is notability, and it is not our job to pass judgment. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a nomination made out of spite, for the sole purpose of disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why you need to stick to the drama boards and making jokes. Just because you don't understand the argument doesn't mean this is being done out of spite. Please leave this to the grown ups if you can't assume good faith, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fine one to be lecturing others about "good faith", given your own recent ANI shenanigan. As regards this, the argument itself I understand totally - and it is a joke. Grumpy and SquawkBox and Kww can't get their way on the issue of redundant citations in lists, so now they're trying this cynical tactic. It is a bad-faith nomination. If you don't think this nomination is being done out of spite, you haven't been paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

like I said, stick to the kiddies table. --Malerooster (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pot. Kettle. Black. FWIW ATG and BB both have prodigious block logs and AN/I history. Aggressively blanking content, edit warring, threatening and insulting those who oppose, and then nominating for deletion is a well known pattern, and can reasonably be considered disruptive, particularly if judged by the community to be unfounded in the first place. I don't think we have to go there yet. The community consensus process will take its course, we'll see if the participants comply with the outcome. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I once went without a block for 4 years, and then was blocked unjustifiably. So I no longer much care. It's the occasional price of honesty. But don't lump me in with the deletionists who triggered this latest fiasco. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The AVN Award, the leading awards for the pornography industry, has an award category for "Crossover Star of the Year Award", which shows that crossover stars are a notable and discrete category. The porn-mainstream crossover phenomenon is not discussed on Wikipedia, of which this list is part of the story. Perhaps the article could be renamed to something "crossover", or reframed to be about porn-mainstream crossover, but the content is related and so should be preserved and worked out on the talk page how to frame it. -- GreenC 18:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (edit conflict) mostly per Wikidemon. Everytime a nomination contains the rhetorical question "Why should we care of X?", we know we are dealing with a bad AfD nomination. We're not in the business of snobbishly deciding what our readers should care about, and even less of the business of thinking why they should care. All that we should care is that it is sourceable, notable knowledge, which means that somehow someone cared for it, no matter how baffling it is for us. Wikidemon has shown proof of such requirements being met. A quick perusal on Google Books even shows that the transition/intersection between porn acting and mainstream acting is discussed in academic sources, and as such it is not a trivial intersection. The accompanied blanking of the list is also troubling. --cyclopia^speak! 18:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cavarrone found reliable sources. And whenever someone is in a film that gets reviewed, they'd mention they formerly did pornography, if that's what they were known for. Dream Focus 18:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wanted to chime in with my offer to source 10 of the currently blanked entries, per Talk:List_of_pornographic_actors_who_appeared_in_mainstream_films#Sourcing. As best I can tell, this AfD is really being driven by Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Unreferenced_lists_and_porn_stars_RFC. More drama instead of article improvement, as usual!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Cavarrone has found sources that indicate coverage of pornographic actors in non-pornagraphic roles. That such sources exist isn't disputed (I indicated as much in my deletion rationale). What I do however dispute is that such coverage in any way validates this indiscriminate list, which seems to cover every anonymous bit-part role played by a pornographic actor in any non-porn film whatsoever. If the appearance of particular pornographic actors in 'mainstream' roles is significant, this should be demonstrable by sources covering the particular actor and role in depth. Notability is not inherited, and actors doing non-notable things in barely-notable films (if that - note the redlinks) don't belong in any list meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 19:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cavarrone has provided RS establishing GNG and the template at the article clearly states it is undergoing a major edit, so with a little rehabilitation, it should be kept. As to cyclopia's point about the Afd, I agree as well. Anytime the nominator is not able to provide reasoning based on policies and guidelines, but rather questions and comments like Why should we care and whether we should give two hoots about it one way or another and We don't have, it just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments above, especially Wikidemon and GreenC. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With all the bias against porn actors and actresses, some have proven to be crossover artists who can play very serious roles in films, television, theatre and sometimes are good musicians, singers, painters, writers, directors and yes in a strange kind of way role models. Some also enjoy a cult following and their appearances in mainstream is very significant despite the obstacles. So the raison d'etre for such an article is very clear, highlight sucesses in other fields where they are not just some "piece of meat" and talentless though admittedly well endowed hopeless pieces of garbage to dispose of. About the nomination for AfD, I see this is an improvement at least opening the door for pro and con arguments for one. That was what was evidently wrong in colleague SqueakBox's initial approach. It was this intransigent attitude of deleting it all despite it all that exploded all this discussion. The problem would have been solved if he had eliminated doubtful dubious entries and kept the rest. I am not against. In fact we should be diligent by not dubbing actors arbitrarily as porn actors when they are not. If there is even a 10% doubt about somebody being in porn take him out. But there were many listed whose pornographic credentials were beyond a shred of doubt and their participation in crossover roles in non-pornographc films quite accurate. But au contraire SqueakBox deleted them all in one stroke and at the beginning just a couple of editors including me in what became a long piece protested (I never write long pieces by the way, but here I had to.) And the page sadly remained without content. Now things are better. We have a list back, so we can discuss objectionable items that we select, so for now it is a better situation. Also we have an AfD which is quite balanced overall. So my basic two concerns are answered. We do have a content, and we do have a due process.. let it culminate in a concensus. Having said that, I am all for keeping the list with the necessary clean-up effected in ridding it of the contentious ones ... werldwayd (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — It's a useful article according to its views/day (about 800/day over the last two months) and the more than 300 editors who took the time to work on it over the years.[7] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.