Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Parker's Flashback (1981 film)


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Al Parker&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No claim of or supporting notability, fails notability guidelines for porn. Prod removed by IP SPA editor without explanation Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The eponymous star of the title meets WP:PORNBIO for his unique contribution and, of his limited filmography, there are ten other articles describing specific films.  I'm not claiming this is a classic of world cinema but pre-AIDS direct-to-video gay porn films are few in number and of some social-science interest.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or as an alternate redirect to Al Parker. Just because Parker is notable doesn't mean every film he has starred in is. There doesn't seem to be sufficient notability for this film in either case. MuZemike 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. In general, classic bareback is a limited and collected genre.  Specifically, Flashback is a great example of this genre and people who collect classic bareback will probably wiki the movie.De Bergerac (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think either of the keep !votes is grounded in policy; while the film might be of "social-science interest," that wouldn't make it notable absent an appropriate published social-science source; if just being collectible were enough to confer notability; we'd have thousands of articles on individual coins, stamps, comic book issues, and probably even Beanie Babies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.