I have no particular attachment to pornstar bios, but 'for who we have no real name' does not seem a valid objection to me - most if not all of our entertainment industry bios use the person's 'stage name' as the title of the article, and only mention their 'real name' briefly in passing, if at all, so the lack of a 'real name' doesn't make the article dramatically different
Cynical
geni wrote:
On 3/26/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:10:21 +0200, you wrote:
"a large portion of wikipedia is pornographic" - Britannica representative (unidentified)
He could always nominate some of the porn articles for deletion. Start with the "actresses" for who we have no real name, no date of birth, no biographical data outside of their entries on add-it-yourself porn fansites, and who have appeared in a small number of films released straight to video.
I wish them luck. Porn seems to be one area where "verifiable" is taken as meaning more than one Google hit... Guy (JzG)
Please don't do anything to annoy our young single male demographic. Userboxians will have been a mear picnic by comparison.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l