Talk:Maria Beatty

LGBT Categories

Hi, I created the original article and just wanted to clarify a point. While the theme of Maria Beatty's films is female/female BDSM and is therefore lesbian in nature, I have not come across any interviews where she describes or categorizes herself as being "a lesbian". She describes herself as being a "lifestyle submissive". Dlloyd 10:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Notability

This filmmaker has won several erotic film festival awards, has numerous mentions in academic books and journal articles and is the subject of at least one academic journal article. The only issue with the article is the ongoing additions are the ongoing contributions by Maria Beatty, or an editor claiming to be her. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All the mentions I found were one-sentence mentions (I also see that none of her films have articles on Wikipedia). However, I am quite happy for you to provide citations for the awards, for the numerous mentions in academic books and journal articles, etc. I looked, and couldn't find anything relevant as per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO and WP:RELIABLE_SOURCES. I look forward to seeing your contributions showing these citations. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First, since when is it that having individual films have Wikipedia articles is a criterion for the notability of a filmmaker? Second, have you tried doing a simple Google Scholar or Google Books search? Third, this just strikes me as so much Deletionism run amok and "if I haven't heard of X, then X must not be notable". If this goes up for deletion again, I'm definitely taking this to the AFD board – there's no way an article on a subject with even borderline notability should be taken out simply based on the judgement of one person acting unilaterally. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This article cites no references to assert its notability. The burden is on those wanting to keep the article to supply references. Rees11 (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the kind of Deletionism that I see at work here is that it basically asserts that articles cannot be started as stubs (which the article in its present form clearly is), and if they are, they should be immediately deleted. Can you point me to any kind of Wikipedia policy that expressly states this? And its my understanding that if an article is deleted, recreating the article is pretty much blocked without permission of an administrator, which I think puts an undue burden on somebody who wants to write a properly verifiable referenced version of the article in question. I can list several sources that attest to Beatty's notability under external links. In fact, I've already listed one. But I don't think editors should be badgered into immediately expanding this article beyond a stub just because other editors are impatient and chomping at the bit to delete the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been unsourced for over two years. How long are we supposed to wait? You claim to have added a source, but I don't see it. There is no "References" section at all. Rees11 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I had a "reference", I said I had a source indicating notability listed at the bottom of "External links". The article is unsourced because it is a stub and not in any kind of stable form. It has only recently been knocked back from User:Mariabeatty's self-promotional cut-and-paste. The article now needs to expanded into one that meets Wikipedia policies. This process is not helped by editors who are chomping at the bit to delete the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for any other editors, but I am not chomping at the bit to delete the article. We are not talking about having only one or two references - we are talking about an article with no references whatsoever.

To Iamcuriousblue: I did look for references (Google Scholar: 87 hits - basically one-line mentions of her or her films; Google Books: 233 hits - a lot of which are single-sentence mentions, but some have a bit more, such as Netporn: DIY web culture and sexual politics By Katrien Jacobs, which has 2 paragraphs; Talking Visions: Multicultural Feminism in a Transnational Age By Ella Shohat, which has a uncertain amount (one of the pages is not available); Beating: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Inc Icon Group International which has one paragraph; The hypersexuality of race: performing Asian/American women on screen and scene By Celine Parreñas Shimizu, which has one paragraph; Filmmakers: Webster’s Facts and Phrases By Icon Group International, Inc. which has one paragraph; Religion and contemporary liberalism By Paul J. Weithman (unknown amount, as most isn't available online) - and that's it! All the other hits are either about someone else, or are one-sentence mentions. Before I responded on this thread on 26th August, I looked and couldn't find significant coverage, which is what the criteria specifies. A total of about 10 paragraphs (and a lot of that will probably be the same information) in the scholarly/book side of things does not make for a significant film maker.

You say The problem with the kind of Deletionism that I see at work here is that it basically asserts that articles cannot be started as stubs (which the article in its present form clearly is), and if they are, they should be immediately deleted - this article has been around for 5 years! Yes, I appreciate that the user calling themselves Mariabeatty has been problematic - but that hasn't stopped you and others from adding references, surely? I think that it is up to the proponents for keeping this article in Wikipedia to actually look at those resources (and maybe borrow them from a library or buy them if necessary) and to actually cite references within the article.

I may not know anything about Maria Beatty, but that doesn't mean that I think "Oh, I know nothing about her, let's get rid of the article". There have been many articles that I knew nothing about, but as they were tagged as being unreferenced, I took the time to find references. If the references are there, are significant and from reliable sources, then the article should be kept. If they are not out there, are not a significant amount or are not from reliable sources, then the article should be deleted. That is my understanding of how Wikipedia works.

I think this is the longest bit of typing I've done on a non-article page! I just don't like being accused of being a Deletionist, when I count myself as a moderate, middle-of-the-road ist on the issue. I don't like being told "you should have looked for sources", when I damn well did - but couldn't find any which would appear to fit the criteria for use in an article.-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, my sincere apologies for accusing you of deletionism and not checking references. Under "External links" I have listed one academic journal articles and two popular magazine articles that are specifically about her. I also want to bring up the criteria of WP:PORNBIO because I think it applies here, even if Beatty is known primarily as a director rather than a performer. One of her films, Silken Sleeves in 2007 won a UK Erotic Award "Best Independent Film" and a Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival Best Director (Fetish Film) award. I believe she took another Best Director award in the latter festival in 2004. That certainly would meet condition 1 on the PORNBIO list. I'm going to request comment from some other members of Wikiproject Pornography, who have some pretty clear ideas on who rises to WP:NOTABILITY in the porn world.

As for this article having been around for 5 years, I don't think that's either here nor there. I've only been working with this article for the last two months, and so far have mainly been dealing with getting the cruft out of it. This not gotten much attention on Wikipedia until recently. I think it can be expanded into a worthwhile short article.

If you still want to delete this article, then it should be taken through the Articles for Deletion process, since the deletion is being challenged, rather than the admin-only deletion which it was chalked up for earlier. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick google news search shows the basic criteria of WP:BIO is met so disregard WP:PORNBIO. Unfortunately, none of this info is in. References are needed and the content could also be expanded.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Beatty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801122808/http://www.mailfemale.tv/ratedx/ratedx.html to http://www.mailfemale.tv/ratedx/ratedx.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)