Talk:Maya Gold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on Dec 13 2005. The result of the discussion was No consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

This article about Maya Gold (porn actress) is intended to inform porn-fans about her sex-work in porn films. Many porn-fans have specialized interests in the kind of sex acts they want to see. And when they see an attractive porn actress, they often want to know if she caters to their sex-interests before buying or renting her films.

This is not a biographical article. But biographical information about Maya Gold would be a welcome addition.

Granted, but the article needed to be rewritten in order to fall in with the Manual of Style for biographies. (Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for porn stars, no more than the Encyclopedia Brittanica.) Furthermore, the actress has not gained sufficient notability in her field and as Wikipedia is not a biographical listing of all persons, I have nominated the article for deletion. My edits are not an act of vandalism and an AFD can go either way. All an AFD determines is whether or not people believe that an article should be included in Wikipedia. If you have any more questions, please feel free to reply to them here and please do not remove the AFD notice. When the vote is over, the AFD notice will be removed as per the guidelines. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 09:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is appearing in 50 pornos not notable? That's quite a large number of major titles for a porn star. Most female porn stars appear in less than 10. Its the males that get the huge numbers. To have a girl appear in that kind of number is pretty notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The adult film industry cranks out hundreds of titles a month -- and many films are, in fact, assembled using clips from already released material. So, really, 50 is not noteworthy... Just ask any expert in the field. The "average" porn actress makes roughly this (or less), then disappears into obscurity. Also, the number of male porn stars is far less than female porn stars, simply because it is harder to find male porn stars who can "act" on demand -- women are more flexible in this case. (So, yes, males get the huge numbers -- only because of basic human reproductive biology.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many other articles about film stars in this encyclopedia that have little biographical information. These articles only identify the film stars and describe their work. Here are some examples: Bhoomika Chawla, Poonam Dhillon, Rinke Khanna. If you are going to delete this article about Maya Gold, then to be consistent you'll have to delete hundreds of other similar articles. And I think that this kind of mass deletion smacks of censorship. Just because these articles don't fit in the biographical category doesn't mean that they should be deleted. Perhaps a new category should be created for such articles. But I really don't see why useful information about film stars that many people want to know should be excluded from this encyclopedia.

I'm afraid that you're making an incorrect correlation between mass deletion and mass censorship. The two are not directly related and this is a very weak argument for keeping an article. Yes, those articles should be looked into to see whether or not they are worthy of inclusion in Wikipeda -- however, I would recommend reading (and understanding) the policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- I am referring directly to point #6. (Also, when linking to articles within Wikipedia, you can just use the brackets -- [[ and ]], with the article name contained within the brackets.) Thanks for your concerns -- and if you have any more questions, comments, or concerns, let 'em fly. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)