Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faites l'Amour avec Clara Morgane

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. The "5000 google hits" argument was, in my mind, successfully rebutted by the analysis that only about 140 of them were non-duplicative. 140 hits is well below even the minimal standards normally accepted for an article from popular culture.

Note that this is not a VfD about the actress. This discussion is about an article on a single webvideo. Rossami (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Faites l'Amour avec Clara Morgane
I'm an inclusionist, but this is where even inclusionism stops. Forget the nudie pics, which are easily removed, but Wikipedia can quite obviously never contain articles on every porn movie ever created (I'm pretty sure porn movies are shot at a faster rate than we get contributors). It stands to reason therefore that all those that are included should be notable for something (Deep Throat, Debbie Does Dallas). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is all an article on a forgettable movie like this could ever be. We recently adopted a speedy criterion that covers articles on persons that do not establish notability. We might need a similar one for fiction, of whatever kind. I regret using this nomination as an instructive example, but I don't think it's WP:POINT&mdash;just deleting it would actually violate policy.

Oh, and just in case: delete, of course. JRM · Talk 22:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, 5,900 google hits. I don't follow your argument... users would want to be able to look this up, why deny them that? Kappa 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because this is not what an encyclopedia ought to be. Subjective? Yes. I'm not going to pretend it's not. This article can probably be made verifiable, so that's not the problem. I am voting on notability here. "User would want to be able to look this up", can you imagine anything that falsifies such a criterion? Somewhere, somehow, someone is going to want to look up anything you can possibly imagine. By this criterion, everything of which the existence can be independently verified should have an article. I don't believe that's tenable. JRM · Talk 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Subjective" is the opposite of NPOV. 5,900 google hits prove that far more than "someone, somewhere" would want to be able to look this up. Kappa 22:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The neutral point of view does not apply to article inclusion criteria. And 5,900 Google hits can be irrelevant, just as 12 can be. JRM · Talk 22:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification, as I see an important misunderstanding arising here. The "subjective" part arises not in deciding whether this particular movie should be in Wikipedia, but whether all movies that do not establish notability apart from having been sold to people at some time should be. I can see how applying a criterion like "I don't think it should be here" for individual articles would be wrong and decidedly non-neutral. (Though it still has nothing to do with NPOV as written.) JRM · Talk 23:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Requiring extra notability beyond a reasonably sized audience is not representing the POV of that audience, probably all of whom would like to be able to look it up. Kappa 23:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "I want to be able to look this up" is not a point of view, not in the sense we use it. A POV is a way of interpreting reality, not a desire. Your claim seems to be that if something has 5,900 Google hits, this establishes that many people believe it is notable, and it is this POV that ought to be represented. I dispute that. While many people will have been involved in the production, marketing, selling and buying of this movie, you will not convince me that they (or even a significant portion of them) believe this movie ought to be in an encyclopedia, or that they would think it a good idea if it were, or in fact anything else relevant to Wikipedia's coverage. I acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion on what the encyclopedia should contain, but I cannot agree that my opinion somehow violates NPOV. JRM · Talk 23:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * weak keep - it certainly passes WP:V, and Wikipedia is not paper. If we can build consensus on notability guidelines for adult films, and it can be shown that this film doesn't meet those guidelines, I could be convinced to change my vote. -Satori 23:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Delete Agreed, 140 real web hits, not notable -Satori 17:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn. Of those vaunted Google hits, only 140 of them are useful, so there is plenty of repetitive usage and few people looking for it. -Splash 00:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm a porn aficionado.  This is not notable.  No one will ever look this up on purpose. Nandesuka 00:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BIO establishes 5,000 as the ballpark figure for entertainment figures appearing in "commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more". Presumably, the criterion to be met for such commercial entertainments is 5,000 as well. With over 5,000 Google hits this meets such a criterion. Capitalistroadster 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But like I said, only [140 of them are useful. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 01:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination. That is what I would normally refer to as "140 Google hits". I also don't think Google hits have any connection with WP:BIO or "watched by a total audience". WP:V is a very, very, very weak criterion, the most minimal, puny, wispy little creature of an article criterion that we have. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and check also the Copyright status of the four images. 68.91.98.249 17:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Googling for porn is useless for establishing notability. And it's too distracting when you're in the mood for löööv. / Peter Isotalo 02:13, 14 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.