Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gag Factor


 * 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 of the debate was Keep by unambiguous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Gag Factor
Non notable, troll material HittiteKing 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unpleasant material, but the pornographic series in question has won several AVN Awards (sample), and as such is notable within the field. -Colin Kimbrell 03:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and in fact has won only two AVN awards, for Best Oral-Themed Series in 2003 and 2004. I would like to hope that it remains non-notable for its particularly offensive manner of treating women. Denni &#9775; 05:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This seems like an odd line of reasoning to me. Would you also vote to delete Fargo (movie) because it "won only two" Oscars? -Colin Kimbrell 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Two is not several, and an AVN award is not an Oscar. Denni &#9775; 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Which award, then, is the equivalent of the Oscar for pornographic films? -Colin Kimbrell 04:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In order for it to be equivalent to an Oscar, it would have to have the prestige an Oscar has, the viewing audience an Oscar has, and the international recognition an Oscar has. My guess is that not one in a thousand people would know what the "AVN Award" is (and does it even have a name?) whereas if you say "the Oscar", nobody asks "Oscar who?" Sorry, the best you can do here is "analogous to the Oscar". There is no equivalent award. Denni &#9775; 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As it is the preeminent award for the field, then, winners of that award are notable within that field, and worthy of an article (assuming that the field itself is sufficiently notable, of course). If pornography isn't notable, though, we've got a lot of deleting ahead of us. -Colin Kimbrell 15:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep I feel though the show can be seen as degrading to women, the women in the films know what is going to happen when they sign up for the show and can say no at any time. It is a fetish for some men and some women and this may be an interest to those who it isnt a fetish of as you'd find that a lot of people havent even thought of the concept and would find it quite bizarre. This article could act as warning not to watch the series to those who would find it offensive and either way it is unlikely those who were not looking for this article would stumble upon it.-john (Unsigned edit by 81.139.49.250)

Keep Denni notes that the site is offensive. So Wikipedia is censoring offensive material? Not everything in life is pleasant, but Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. Soon it will turn into something people don't trust if things are deleted because they might offend someone. I can understand deleting offensive pictures, but if we are turning into censors, people will not trust the unfetterd flow of information that Wikipedia is famous for. (Unsigned edit by 67.185.234.168)

Comment Please don't remove the AFD tag from the article while debate is ongoing. If you want to keep the article, that's the wrong way to go about it. -Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 3 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.