On 2/5/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't agree with that demand. I can imagine our article on Hardcore pornography being improved by the inclusion of images of it. They would need to actually add to the encyclopaedic content and not just be decorative, which might be a difficult barrier to overcome (I think you can adequately describe most sexual acts in words, so the picture would be redundant - which probably falls under "not notable" given an appropriate definition of notability), but I certainly don't object to such images on principle.
There would be no inherent problem with including hardcore pornography in an article about [[Hardcore pornography]]; Any reader genuinely offended by hardcore pornography would probably not choose to read an article thusly titled (cf. [[Muhammed cartoons]] or whatever the complete bloody title is), and possibly such a reader would also be offended by the text.
I'm not sure how "notability" is a meaningful consideration for pornographic images. Obviously for a mere visual example, we would prefer a free image (and the result would be amateur porn nine times out of ten, which would serve its purpose well enough). In other cases, the image itself (or the film from which it was excerpted) might, for its notoriety, be the subject of the article or section, and a fair use rationale could probably be claimed.
On any sliding scale of "notability" within the wild world of porn, these would be two polar extremes, whereas the middle 98% would be of markedly lesser value to the project (though nothing would be completely useless).
—C.W.