Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-Ed Fever (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   delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Co-Ed Fever (film)

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

Non-notable pornographic film, article consists only of brief plot summary, short cast list, and unsupported claim taken from user comment at IMDB. No assertion of WP:NOTABILITY, no sources, no indication of any independent 3d party coverage, therefore failing the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Film's cast included many notable porn stars, some of whom were doing mainstream work at the same time. Article helps avoid reader confusion by disambiguating Co-Ed Fever (TV series). Added some citations since nomination. Jokestress (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing provided by Jokestress. Well done. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, the sourcing that's been added doesn't demonstrate notability. Aside from a now-deleted link to a retailer site, the citations to the "almanac" and the encyclopedias fail under the applicable notability guideline, WP:NOTFILM, which states that sources like "listings in comprehensive film guides" are not sources satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Mentions and trivial coverage in books of trivia and books of lists don't change that. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources would....but this film doesn't have that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Meets at least three criteria per WP:NOTFILM
 * It was shot on 35 mm film and the film had a national theatrical release (see one-sheet).
 * The film was given a commercial re-release (it has had several re-releases since its film debut, including VHS and at least 2 DVD releases). See re-release 1, re-release 2, re-release 3)
 * The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. For instance, controversial figure Paul Barresi appeared in the film as his first straight-market porno following involvement in gay-market modeling and film.
 * I am happy to provide sourcing in print and online biographies for notable figures who appear in the film. Jokestress (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Jokestress. Passes WP:NOTFILM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Jokestress's comments regarding WP:NOTFILM don't hold water. Neither being shot on 35mm film nor having a theatrical release is listed as a NOTFILM criterion (and neither is even mentioned in the article, to say nothing of being reliably sourced, if that matters here). The links Jokestress provides have nothing to do with a commercial rerelease of the film -- which in NOTFILM refers to theatrical releases, not DVD releases. (The criterion wouldn't make sense if it applied to DVD releases, it would say that the longer it takes a film to appear on DVD, the more notable the film is.) And the third claim isn't supported by reliable sources -- that may be what it says in Barresi's article, but when you check the cited source, the information it's cited for isn't there! The overall GNG problem remains -- the only sources found so that discuss this are the sort characterized as "trivial" by the guideline, not supporting notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. For an adult film to have a national run at that time was unusual, especially one shot on 35. Most were shot on 16, and some on 8. This was among the last wave of nationally-released narrative pornographic works prior to the straight-to-video market explosion. The multiple re-releases certainly qualify under WP:NOTFILM, which says nothing about theatrical re-release. See General principles, criterion 2, item 3. Furthermore, the adult film industry distribution model changed radically in the five years following the film's original theatrical run. Grindhouse theaters closed across the country as the market moved to video sales and rentals. The fact that this film had three re-releases and is still sold online meets WP:NOTFILM criteria. This featured an ensemble cast of very well-known actors and was made by XRCO Hall of Fame producer Harold Lime and AVN Hall of Fame director Gary Graver. I still believe this article is most helpful for general readers to disambiguate the short-lived TV series of the same name and release date. Jokestress (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the relevant claims you make are reliably sourced information. (Nor is the Harold Lime claim). And your "rerelease" argument is absolute nonsense; it amounts to saying that any film made more than five years before DVDs were available is inherently notable if was later released on DVD. That's flat-out ridiculous. Rather than arguing based on your ideas about what makes a porn film important, please provide what's required by the general notability guideline: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."


 * Delete. Doesn't pass NOTFILM for me per Wolfowitz's arguments. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails NOTFILM. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete does not prove with independent reliable sources that it meets WP:NOTFILM. Algébrico (talk) 01:07, 10 September 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.