Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family members appearing in adult movies


 * 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. Discounting single-purpose accounts, I get 7 editors suggesting Delete, only 1 Keep (and three for Merge). The Keep (or Merge) arguments basically revolve around "Wikipedia is not censored". Granted, but his does not require Wikipedia to give special consideration to porn; it doesn't get a pass just because it's porn. The article has no sources given, so we have to assume that it's original research. Herostratus 07:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Family members appearing in adult movies
In addition to being totally vile, this is non-encyclopedic listcruft. And shameful. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or strong cleanup as unsourced, with doubt as to whether the topic is encyclopedic. Nominator is reminded that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors nor to enforce contributors' standards of "vile" or "shameful".  Performers in this medium are less verifiable and more likely to falsely claim kinship as a publicity grab, so sources need to be cited.  Barno 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Incest pornography, since some of the entries are verifiable. Keep, cleanup and rename to List of family relations in the adult film industry. "Shameful" and "vile" are moral point of views, not reasons for deletion. The article is not very different from List of family relations in the National Hockey League. It needs sourcing and cleanup, not deletion. Prolog 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is. It's not a collection of people who work in the same industry who are closely related to one another.  It is (leaving verifiabiliy issues aside for one moment) a list of people who are closely related to one another who have appeared together in a single film.  Your suggested title is too broad in scope for what this list actually is.  List of related adult film performers who have appeared together in a single film is closer to the mark, albeit unwieldy. Uncle G 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agreed, I should've looked closer. I'm changing to merge now since I discovered there's a short article on incest pornography, where the few verifiable entries from this fit right in. Prolog 19:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fully original research, it seems.  --Nehwyn 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is quite unlikely that there will ever be enough verifiable information on this topic to be able to compile a useful article. Additionally, I do not see this subject as notable or encyclopedic. The article will never be more than an unreferenced list of obscure trivia, and likely original research as well. Kaldari 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to incest pornography. &mdash; AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to incest pornography. I disagree that material should be deleted because someone finds it "totally vile". Carlossuarez46 03:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I never said it should be deleted because it is vile; I simply mentioned that as an editorial aside. I gave reasons for its deletion. Try to see the forest for the trees. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You seem to have blocked the view with two huge cones. This - as all articles on Wikipedia - deserves neutrality, so it's not good to start with POV statements like "totally vile" and "shameful". Prolog 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep and clean up; wikipedia is not censored and this is an encyclopedic article TrevorLSciAct 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list of largely non-notable people with added potential for violating WP:BLP, to put it mildly. A list is not required in incest pornography - that list already has one example of actual incest pornography, and some of the entries on this list are not incest pornography as according to the list the supposed family members do not have sex, so don't merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sam Blanning. This is shaky ground – if one of these people complains, on the basis of WP:BLP, it will be a mess. Let it go to the big article graveyard in the sky. Krakatoa  Katie  22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE - This information is verifiable - if it proves to be false or mistaken it shoud be removed. Information is information - it should not be made restricted like the Catholic Churches banned list - works such as Clock Work Orange, or the Origion of the speieces. Any censorship should be stopped!
 * Wikipedia policy is to "try to respect consensus". Consensus in most countries using Wikipedia is for freedom of information and the avoidance of censorship. Users want to read about all subjects, usual & unusual. If you didn't, you wouldn't be here now. In the interests of us all, those who submit information should strive to be as accurate as possible.

Censorship of any subject is dangerous and must be avoided at all costs. You don't Italic texthaveItalic textto read about it! - Unsigned by "User:Tastylicious"
 * Delete. Listcruft, non encyclopedic. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:33, 9 November 2006 (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.