This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2010. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.
A fact from 9 to 5: Days in Porn appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 May 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Including a few of the 77 individuals who were interviewed for this documentary for context is per Film MOS. The first reversion by Hullaballo Wolfowitz of the per-consensus inclusion of some of these interviewees used the summary "unreliably sourced at best, appears to associate similarly named persons outside field with porn participants) ".[1] Through his summary, it appear that he has no actual familiarity with the documentary itself and has made no good faith effort to review any of the many sources available online for verification of these individual's participation. I reverted his deletion, with a summary that the documentary itself is suitable for sourcing the interviewees. [2] He reverted yet again, now using a summary "blp issues not addressed." As the individuals are verifiable as being interviewed for this documentary, there is no "blp issue" to address. If he researches and offers a source stating that one of the credited cast listed were not in the film, he is welcome to remove that one. I again reverted his undiscussed deletions and explained very clearly that the individuals are verifiable.[3]. After which, I am bringing this to the talk page. I invite editors who have contibuted to the article over many months to comment. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop playing with your vuvuzela, Michael; you're just going to keep embarassing yourself. You can noisily rant all you want about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but you're the one who hasn't done his homework. I spotchecked several of the links on this lousy list, and two of three proved spurious. Is Aidan Kelly, 70-year old poet and writer on Wiccan subjects, really in this film? Could it possibly be that the article, as linked, confuses him with the nonnotable Aiden Kelly, who turns out to have been married to one of the porn performers listed as interviewed? Is Lorelei Lee, professional athlete/entertainer really in this film? Or does the article confuse her with the undistinguished porn performer Lorelei Lee, who with a similar lack of imagination lifted her pseudonym from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes? Could it possibly be that when I said, as you quoted, the list "appears to associate similarly named persons outside field with porn participants" that I had "actual familiarity" with the matter at issue? The problem of such bad links in porn related articles is pestilential; I've removed hundreds of such links myself, and it took a team of editors months to do the cleanup on List of male performers in gay porn films when the issue as forced there. This laundry list is unsourced and, as it stands, demonstrably inaccurate, and your edit warring to reinstate is grossly inconsistent with applicable policy and with responsible editing generally. Find something constructive to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List cleanup is welcome, and thank you for pointing us such problems. A total list removal however is not the way to go. Also please be a bit more civil in your interactions with M.Q.Schmidt --Cyclopiatalk17:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unreferenced list containing BLP violations, and it adds no encyclopedic value to the short list of more notable interviewees in the text. So it should go. As for civility, Michael led off with unfounded accusations of a lack of good faith etc, and merited a strong response (as well as an independent civility warning, I would hope). When an editor behaves badly, pointing out the extent of bad behavior is not uncivil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's referenced in the movie itself, see above. BLP violations can be removed without removing all the list. That "adds no encyclopedic value" is only your opinion. --Cyclopiatalk17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. An individual BLP violation is to be either removed, properly wikilinked, or unlinked if no article on the subject exists. THAT fixes the individual problem. Kind of simple. There is absolutely no need to remove entire blocks of contextual information when one or two simply tweaks would have resolved the issue. Further, insulting other editors in what could otherwise have been a civil discussion, does little to improve the project. HW's latest reversion[4] of User:Cyclopia was again, without discussion , and is begining to look a lot like his personal opinion is more important that that of any other editor. His latest reversion summary states "rv, remove unsourced list containing BLP violations. If you're not willing to thoroughly check, source, and correct the list, don't restore it)", and as the individuals are sourced to the film itself, I will go through the information personally to make sure the listed individuals are the ones credited as being in the documantary. And the simple and courteous solution is that if the wikilinks are to the wrong person, I will correct the link. If there is no article on a listed individual, I will unlink the name. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modified "Interviewees" section to be returned to the article... cleaned up, properly wikilinked, and set as prose per WP:MOSFILM#Cast to include identifying contextual background on the individuals:
Just coming to this as an un-involved editor. I agree that it is perfectly appropriate to include a list of subjects interviewed for the film. Indeed, I can't imagine a rational reason to intentionally remove such a list without attempting to source/improve it first. Simply look for sourcing, cite the list, modify it if need be-- This is just standard practice for any contributor of content to Wikipedia. Though such work seems to be beyond some people-- very few people, actually-- Michael has taken up the task and done a good job. Though I'm not interested enough in the article to join in on the editing, I recommend going with the version worked out here on the talk page. Dekkappai (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DISAMBIG the correction of the few mis-linked names would have been the far more preferred option and could easily have been done by anyone, specially as the removed information represented only a few of the many credited individuals[6] who were interviewed for their insights into the industry. Perhaps his repeated removal[7][8][9][10] of all those listed might have been because he simply wished others to be aware that a few were mis-linked... even though yes, per WP:DISAMBIG, he could have made the simple corections himself. But the corrections are now done, and per WP:MOSFILM, the partial list has been converted into prose that offers contextual information to the reader. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.18:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
