Talk:Sasha Grey

Is Grey notable for anything other than her adult film work

I'm repeating this question because the answer determines the focus of this article. Are there any mainstream sources (specifically not from the adult entertainment industry and their promoters) that meet WP:BIO showing notability for anything other than her adult film work? --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Already answered for #Books near the end of #Missing stuff above, that section also mentions NACTOR + NMODEL. Her mainstream acting + modeling + writing is covered by ordinary mainstream sources, and it makes no sense to look at it in isolation. Would she be a notable erotic author without her adult entertainment background? Maybe not, toss a coin.
Is her modeling for notable artists, fashion magazines, and adult magazines related to this adult entertainment background? Of course it is, e.g., the Girls in the Naked Girl Business series by Zak Smith is not about his Role-playing game activities. For some of these artists I'm not sure how notable they actually are without Sasha Grey.
Is her acting related to her adult entertainment background? Of course it is, in the filmography you can see that she played fictionalized versions of herself, appeared in documentaries about pornography, and played other roles in independent films, related to the fact that she's a cinéaste, right down to her first alias Anna Karina in adult entertainment. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the books: I see nothing but promotional references, either from the adult entertainment industry or the publishing industry, or their promoters. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The section has 12 references + 1 photo after I just removed two dubious references. Tweet + photo ignored, because we had this in #Missing stuff, they support "various languages". Clearly XBIZ is "the industry", but not a bad source, and my browser counts five occurrences of XBIZ on the complete page, three references + one award + the same award in #Awards, no UNDUE in sight.
The Pendu Sound excerpt is not strictly necessary, I used it to replace a bad RS/P HuffPost or Artinfo reference for the same excerpt. One Google Books reference confirms publisher + ISBN for Neü Sex, not good, not bad. The self-published site added by me is a primary source "about the author", as the URL says, with better info about her works than on her official site.
I failed to find a better source for book III when I added that, later I found some reviews for book II. That was in the /GA1 frenzy, the reviewer (+ RSN, I asked) didn't like Renee Ruin and another blogger, all I had was "other uses elsewhere". The remaining 7 references are perfectly normal from my PoV, six are wikilnked (BlackBook + Portland Mercury + Karley Sciortino + AXS twice, same author attributed + Esquire), one forbookssake.net is admittedly only used twice on enwiki. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's more than a year later, and I have the same concerns. I think it's time to just remove it as fan-pov content inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Hipal (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove what specifically? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove emphasis that makes it appear otherwise, like [1].

For example, the first sentence.[2] --Hipal (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It should be cut down although the abundance of the reliable sources since 2009 talk about her projects in the context of being a former pornographic actress.[3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the articles. The first looks like coverage of her book, the second an interview promoting her talk show. Not great material to work from. --Hipal (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There's much more coverage cited within the article. The supermajority of RS cover her activities and career post-porn. They wouldn't cover her without the actual mainstream activities. They usually mention the porn past as a stigma to overcome. Removing the non-porn and attributing it as fan POV is contributing to that stigma.Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If there are any references at all demonstrating long-lasting notability for anything beyond her adult film career, I'm not seeing them.

My impressions as far as musician, acting, modeling, and writing go: They're all derived/built upon her adult film success. The music and writing appear to have gone nowhere. The modeling is less obvious. Again, I'm seeing nothing but very poor references across the board in all areas. --Hipal (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of the title introduction is an issue as to why there's the dispute in the first place? I suggest "is an American actress, model, writer, musician, and former pornographic actress" can be changed into something like "is a former pornographic actress, who is currently <<Insert Roles>>". Difference between these two lines is the person is being acknowledged for the most prominent role he or she had ever done by having that role being the first one to be mentioned but at the same time not ignoring that the person has been active/involved in a different role. This, by the way, is what news media as a whole has been referring to the person as: "former pornstar who has <<Insert Roles>>" and not "<<Insert Roles>>, and former pornstar" which this Wiki article currently is doing. 116.89.34.63 (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I believe it is correct that the former career is listed last in terms of reverse timeline. Also putting it last still puts proper emphasis on importance as being listed last can be seen as more important than third and onward like in authorship and tv and film credits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to give emphasis to her adult film work, nor how to select which areas of work to include. Whatever we choose, we need to make it clear why so other editors understand when they consider any changes. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have asked BLPN to weigh in.[5] Beyond that, we may have to go to an RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Twitch

The Twitch streaming needs discussion and perhaps more weight in the article. The two references recently offered [6] appear unusable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Sportskeeda and WP:FORBESCON --Hipal (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Subtle long-term vandalism

There seems to be an IP vandal in Sri Lanka who has been steadily making small vandalistic edits. I reversed it, but I hardly edit anymore so it would be nice if people could keep an eye on it. Speciate (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it vandalism? Looks more like focusing on notability. We should look carefully at that list. --Hipal (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking closer, the article has broad BLP, RS, NOT, and POV problems, so much that it's difficult to separate encyclopedic content from WP:FANCRUFT. The poor and promotional references should be removed or only used strictly following all relevant policies and guidelines (generally, when paired with far better references). --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Just glancing at the article she's been in a movie with an article, a band with an article, and there are lots of typical sources for celebrities (which aren't quite as reliable as others, but good enough). It would be best to leave the article in its pre-vandalized state lest we be accused of bias against sex workers or against women in general. Speciate (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Her notability as a porn star exceeds all else she's done. Her notablity as a writer may be nonexistant, and not much more as a musician. We need to get rid of the poor sources and what's left to indicate notability. --Hipal (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not a WP:Notability concern, it is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Speciate (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)