Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jenna Jameson

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: not scheduled by Bencherlite ^Talk 20:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Jameson[edit]

Jenna Jameson is an American entrepreneur and pornographic actress, who has been called the world's most famous adult-entertainment performer and "The Queen of Porn". She started acting in erotic videos in 1993 after having worked as a stripper and glamour model. By 1996, she had won the "top newcomer" award from each of the three major adult movie organizations. She has since won more than 20 adult video awards, and has been inducted into both the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) and Adult Video News (AVN) Halls of Fame. Jameson founded the adult-entertainment company ClubJenna in 2000 with Jay Grdina, whom she later married and divorced. Initially a single website, this business expanded into managing similar websites of other stars and began producing sexually explicit videos in 2001. The first such movie, Briana Loves Jenna (with Briana Banks), was named at the 2003 AVN Awards as the best-selling and best-renting pornographic title for 2002. By 2005, ClubJenna had revenues of US$30 million with profits estimated at half that. Advertisements for her site and films, often bearing her picture, have towered on a 48-foot-tall billboard in New York City's Times Square. (Full article...)

6 points (Getting good at this!) 2 for her 40th birthday, 2 for being FA since 2007 and another 2 for being Widely covered. Article is currently semi-protected however. Minima © (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 6 points. Well sourced article. This WP:FA cites one-hundred-and-fifty-eight (158) sources. High quality article. Most educational information, especially about her work as a business founder and entrepreneur. — Cirt (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how this could be appropriate for the Main Page. I've heard reports that this was the only FA that Raul654 would not put on the Main Page. --Rs chen 7754 19:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we ran Fuck (film) on March 1st, so I don't see any reason to run a bio of a porn star six weeks later. Furthermore, disagree that the article is well-sourced when it relies on sources such as AskMen.com, Tattoo.com, Blogspot.com - since when are blogs acceptable sources for FAs? I've read the article and my inclination is say send it to FAR. I see lots of short stubby paragraphs, unformatted refs, a lot of overlinking, etc. And finally, yes, it's inappropriate for the main page - but that's my opinion and I'm a woman who writes at a male dominated website, so don't expect the opinion to hold much weight. Victoria (tk) 20:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Fuck covers a completely different topic entirely, the history of a word. Also, if an article reaches FA status, then it should be at one point featured on the main page. Content is irrelevant. It is hoped that if it reaches this point the article is written in an encyclopedic manner.

Now for the comments on the quality of the article, I can see that. I suggest sending it to FAR.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking, I see it was given FA status on February 17, 2007. Ages ago, and more than enough time for the quality of the article to deteriorate. So again I suggest sending it to FAR. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not good in terms of trying to make WP attractive to women editors. Also, as Victoria says, it seems to include non-BLP-compliant sources (e.g. tattoo.com, DrewTewksbury.com, plus dead links and Daily Mail). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article content should be irrelevant to whether it gets put on the main page. Having an article on the main page is not an endorsement of it. And the topic of pornography is important, and Jenna Jameson is important in the history of pornography. In any case, it may likely not run due to the issues brought up in terms of article quality. But I am very against the idea of certain pages reaching FA status and then being banned from ever actually being featured.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to poor (for an FA) article quality. However, if the article is improved then go ahead. I don't care about the content one way or another. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Support stricken. The article needs a review in quality at FAR, agree with above. Also agree with comments by Taylor Trescott and Harizotoh9 re articles being banned from being featured. — Cirt (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Jenna_Jameson#Article_quality_issues I've raised several issues there, and have made some tiny fixes myself. Article quality issues should be taken there. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons above. Have sent it to FAR. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jenna Jameson/archive1 --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]