Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throat Gaggers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per information noted later in the discussion. Shell babelfish 08:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throat Gaggers

[edit]

Delete (see below) Non-notable movie series, with no sources. Prod was removed without comment. Also note the author of this article has proposed it as a featured article candidate Gwernol 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes it is my article and this movie series is a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography. Plus, others have worked on the article. Just check the history.Courtney Akins 02:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The number of editors is irrelevant. The issue is this movie series is non-notable. If you disagree, please provide independent sources for the notability of the movies. Thanks, Gwernol 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it non notable. I am sure the number of overwhelming keep votes that will be cast will prove your position untenable.Courtney Akins 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the "prod" was removed by my friend after he improved the article, thanks.Courtney Akins 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And asking for "independent sources" for notability is a bit much and sets a dangerous precedent. I am certain you will be proven wrong by the many voters.Courtney Akins 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not a dangerous precedent. Its how Wikipedia works. Please read the central notability guideline that helps us decide which articles should be included in the encyclopedia. You should also read our core policy on verifiability that requires all information added to articles be verifiable. Finally, you should know that this is a discussion, not a vote. Even if you get a lot of your friends to "vote" keep here it doesn't matter unless you can back up the opinions from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please read WP:AFD for more details. Gwernol 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not a failure to assume good faith. Please see WP:EL especially the section "Links normally to be avoided" which includes "Links that ... primarily exist to sell products or services... colloquially known as external link spamming." Since CDUniverse is a shopping site it is a commercial link that should generally be removed. The issue of verifiability is not around whether this movie series exists, but whether it can be verified that it has some independent merit (aka notability). Some reviews or awards to show that it meets notability criteria similar to WP:PORN BIO would be very helpful if you want this kept. I don't see how having two movies in CDUniverse's top 500 meets the WP:CORP criteria; perhaps you could expand on that. Gwernol 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be keenly interested to see what part of WP:V talks about merit and notability. As far as the top 500, this makes the entry at cduniverse.com more than a simple price listing (it is also denoting popularity) which means that it is a non-trivial published work. It's not concrete proof of notability, but it can't be ignored without thought. Keep in mind you're nitpicking the letter of what isn't even a guideline, rather than the spirit of it (i.e. notability is not policy). Please stick to policy and guidelines as your primary reason for deletion. I reassert that verifiability goes only as far as finding sources which verify the information in the article. The sources need not say anything that the article doesn't. BigNate37(T) 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless good verifiable sources are cited to show, not that the films exist—that's not at issue—but that it is indeed, as Courtney Akins asserts, "a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography." As noted above, WP:NOT says, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." For Deep Throat, one can cite Blumenthal, Ralph (1973), "Pornochic," The New York Times, Jan 21, 1973, pg. 272, "It has drawn an average of 5,000 people weekly to the New Mature World Theatre on West 59th Street here, including celebrities, diplomats, critics, businessmen, women alone, and dating couples, few of whom, it might be presumed, would have previously gone to see a film of sexual intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus. It has become a premiere topic of cocktail-party and dinner-table conversation in Manhattan drawing rooms, Long Island beach cottages, and ski country A-frames. It has, in short, engendered a new kind of porno chic." There are about thirty relevant articles in the New York Times that mention "Deep Throat" and "Lovelace," including the April 22, 2002 obituary for Linda Boreman. Where are any comparable references for Throat Gaggers? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. A search of an online database containing the full text of The New York Times returns these results: ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) No documents found for: ("throat gaggers") Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bet that was a search you never thought you would be making. Eusebeus 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the exact policy reads as follows:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
If there are no editors who are going to actually edit the article to fulfull requirement 3, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Girolamo Savonarola 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been cited and written about in the sites mentioned above.Courtney Akins 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sites is the one that that says that, as you put it, "this movie series is a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography?" A quick check of several of the imdb references, such as this one, shows no information about the movie other than the cast listings. Not even any user ratings. You ask us to believe these movies are important, yet apparently no imdb user has bothered to rate it. There is only a single external review, in DVD Talk, and the review says nothing about its being of any importance in the annals of contemporary pornography. It says basically that it is an "oral only film" and that people who enjoy such films will likely enjoy this one. It notes that the film isn't very grainy, and that the lighting could have used a little work but "it's not really bad." How does this add up to an important porn film? It hasn't even been reviewed seriously. For some of the films in this series, imdb lists no reviews at all.
By comparison, imdb's article on The Devil in Miss Jones leads to five external reviews, including this one by Roger Ebert, in which he calls it "The best hard-core porno film I've seen" and says of Georgina Spelvin "there burns in her soul the spark of an artist, and she is not only the best, but possibly the only, actress in the hard-core field."
What sources say the "Throat Gaggers" series is of any importance at all? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to delete per comments and responses from Dpbsmith. With the reasons you've provided, the policy you've referred to, and thought I've given the issue, I now believe deletion of this material is justified by policy. BigNate37(T) 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:PORN BIO and WP:NN for no awards/reviews by reputable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 07:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, they are commercially released films, they are mentioned at places like IMDb, and according to someone above they get a whole ton of Google hits. Seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. Everyking 10:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Such is the problem with notability criteria on Wikipedia; there is no real consensus on what they are. WP:NOT an indiscriminant collection of information #7 (plot summaries) seems to qualify this article for deletion though, and unlike WP:NOTE, WP:NOT is policy. BigNate37(T) 10:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That makes no sense. If it is only a "plot summary" (where is the plot summary here, by the way? Does describing the focal sexual act of the films qualify as a plot summary?), then the solution is not to delete it but to add other things besides a plot summary. In fact this article already includes other things. Everyking 10:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, for pornography, describing the focal sexual act often (and in this case) is a plot summary. If there are parts missing, then it is even less than a plot summary. There is no sourced analysis; the only line that qualifies as achievements is lacking citation. So as I see it, without a source verifying something to the effect of the work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, it fails WP:NOT. As mentioned above, the onus of providing sources lies on the editor who adds content; not on the editor who questions the content added. It is easy to say that the solution is to add other things; saying it won't change the article. I've tried to come up with sources for others' work and fix the article rather than delete it, I can't. Oh, and I changed the indentation to list format, hope you don't mind—it's shallower. BigNate37(T) 11:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam JBKramer 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dpbsmith. --Icarus (Hi!) 02:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No solid reason to delete thus far given. On what grounds is this an indiscriminant collection of data? If this was an article about the length of toes, that would be indiscriminent. This however is about a major movie series. 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.smith (talk • contribs)
Oh, woops. I put to many "~"s. ---J.S (t|c) 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that the article presents no evidence to support the claim that it is, in fact, a major movie series. Or, in wikispeak, that it's notable. --Icarus (Hi!) 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please bear in mind that Courtney Akins is a newcomer of less than a week; please don't bite the newcomers. I've added wikilinks to other relevant articles here and additional external links to sites containing more information about the series. As one of my additions states, the first film in the series received an AVN Award, and all the films are highly rated by AVN. (Receiving an award is one of the "notability" criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)#Criteria; however, that is a proposed guideline, not policy.) The article is still a stub and needs additional work, but I think these edits deserve a second look, at least. —Chidom talk  07:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now with this new information the notability is verfiable and obvious, so this discussion should be closed with a Keep.Courtney Akins 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Chidom. --Dweller 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, won an AVN award and passes any reasonable requirement for notability. Kappa 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AVN award, and strongly recommend closing admin keep in mind how late this evidence came to light. I also concur with Everyking and am not convinced a description of sexual activity amounts to a plot summary. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the AVN award, this article should probably be kept (I promise I'll stop switching sides on this one), but I'm still not convinced that describing the act can be anything but a plot summary, and is much less than a full plot summary, thus making the description of the act on its own even less worthy of existence as an article as a plot summary would be. BigNate37(T) 03:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment From what I could find in trying to clean up the article, the emphasis of this series is definitely the act itself, and may qualify as a sub-sub-genre of the "oral" sub-genre (assuming such exists, I'm a bit out of my element, here). That being the case, what else (generally) should be in an article along those lines? (By the way, if you're going to stop switching sides, I'll stop cleaning up articles that I don't particularly care about. ;-P So there.)—Chidom talk  00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep won an AVN award... that makes it notable.  ALKIVAR™ 17:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whole different comment I'm not seeing evidence that many of the editors have revisited the article and reviewed their recommendation since the article was cleaned up. Is this something that should be given some attention? Or do we generally just let the process well enough alone and hope that people who made a recommendation put this AfD article on their watchlist and are aware of the changes? In any case, it might be nice to have them add "reaffirm recommendation after changes" to their original comments. Just a thought.—Chidom talk  00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another Unless I can't count, this is eligible to be closed; it has been more than 5 days since its nomination.—Chidom talk  00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since notability has been provided through the AVN award, I agree this should be kept. Gwernol 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Since this is a discussion and not a vote, the closing administrator should pay close attention to the comments made by those who have not visisted this article since it has been revised. AVN award winning titles are obviously notable. RFerreira 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Throat_Gaggers&oldid=1136107445"