Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darker image calendar


 * 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   Snow Keep  has been placed on the article Non Admin Close  D u s t i SPEAK!! 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Darker image calendar

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

A pornographic calendar does not seem particularly notable even if it was one of the first to feature black women. The article is OR, and unsourced. None of the 36 Google hits indicates any notability. Also, could some one take a look at the image, it looks o be improperly tagged but I am no image copyright expert. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC) [update:] I withdraw my nomination based on the media references listed at http://www.darkerimagecalendar.com/ (go to the tab labeled press), I assume that the lack of web references is due to the fact that this calendar was before the real rise of the internet. I am not sure though, so, continue to discuss. (upon admin consideration my position can be considered a weak keep) -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I also have concerns that there's conflict of interest with the primary editor, since he's representing himself as the photographer/publisher of the calendar. In which case, that adds a layer of original research to the lack of sources. It's not blatant advertising, but it's not an encyclopedia article that's clearly demonstrated notability, either. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC). Edited 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC); see revised comments below.
 * Delete: In the unlikely event that there are any good references to demonstrate that this is notable or recognised as significant then that could salvage it, but it would still need to be rewritten as its tone is not neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliably sourced Keep. I think the assertions of notability are sufficient for it to be kept, IF they are documented.  Note that the calendar claims to be the first 'swimsuit' (not pornographic) calendar featuring minority models that gained widespread mass market distribution. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup: ProQuest has the LA Times text as presented by the author. I can't find the text of the Hollywood Reporter article, but it's such a trivial mention I can't see it being faked.  I did tag a bunch of things in the article that were NOT referenced by the cites in question, toned some of the puffery, and added a B+N buyer quote from the article.  Overall, it still needs work, but the core elements are sufficiently documented by WP:RS and seem to establish appropriate WP:N. I call it a keeper now. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - First of all, this is not a porn calendar. Look it up on Lexis-Nexis ("ALLNEWS") and you'll quickly find out that that description is completely inaccurate. Secondly, the source of the information in the entry is verified not only by a reputable newspaper (the Los Angeles Times) but also in the "Press" section of the website. You cannot fictionalize the television appearances for the calendar. I think a calendar that received this degree of notoriety deserves an encyclopedic mention. Just because it is not a 21st Century phenomenon does not make it irrelevant. It is particularly relevant in the development of urban model or hip hop model genre. I am the author of the article. --PutneySwope1 —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * — PutneySwope1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * So edit those in please. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Not sure what you want edited in. The LA Times story can only be found through Lexis-Nexis because of its date. (Or, you would have to pay to retrieve the articles mentioned in The Los Angeles Times or Hollywood Reporter.) There is a graphic of the LA Times story on the Darker Image website in the Press section. The television show mentions of the calendar appear in Quicktime format on the Darker Image website, but cannot be linked here because the site is done using Flash. PutneySwope1 (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the latter, include the link on the talk page of the article: that way, other editors can view it. Regarding the former, cite it, even if no link is given in the citation. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See, LA Times article on Talk page. PutneySwope1 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So include a link to the website on the Talk Page? Not a problem but it is listed as a reference in the article, as is the citation to the Los Angeles Times, which conforms to the Chicago Style Manual. PutneySwope1 (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can't find the fulltext and verify the cite. If so, and it says what you say it says, I'd call this one a keeper. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Also, see my talk section on this topic.


 * Keep, barring Jclemens turning up something odd with verifying the fulltext. I'm going to assume good faith that the reprint of the LA Times article at the Darker Image website is accurate: it asserts that this was the first black calendar to sell in a mainstream bookstore. I'll call that sufficiently notable and verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The LA Times coverage is legitimate; see which has three paragraphs available free. However, the article should be moved to The Darker Image which was the main title as featured on the cover of the calendars. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd been holding off on a move until the AfD was settled; I hate having a title change mid-discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also prefer to wait until the AfD closes to have an article moved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, my thought too. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be WP:SNOWed as keep at this point, so we can get on with that. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everyone's input. Very helpful. I completely agree with the title change suggested by Metropolitan90. PutneySwope1 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2008 (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.