Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Kissing Girls 1: Young Lesbians in Love


 * 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 most. It's not clear that the majority of participants considered the parent article when making their remarks as it was bundled in rather late in this process. Suggest a separate AFD to determine that. Apparently I misunderstood what was going on and that debate already exists. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Girls Kissing Girls 1: Young Lesbians in Love

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence that WP:NFILM is met. (Disputed PROD). SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing it (the movie or the notability).  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this article, I mentioned on the talk page that while I can see why some users might have a problem with notability, nowhere in WP:NFILM does it mention anything about pornographic films. The nominator then asked why porn movies should be treated any differently with the guideline, to which I responded that WP:BIO specifically uses WP:PORNBIO as a way of treating porn actors differently. Thus, if WP:NFILM was tweaked to mention criteria for porn like WP:BIO is, then I would be more understanding of an AfD. (BTW, Sven, what do you mean when you say you're not seeing the movie?).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 17:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if all else fails, why couldn't it just be merged to Girls Kissing Girls?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 18:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The Girls Kissing Girls film series has already an article, this episode does not appear particularly notable, and does not pass GNG and WP:NF. Also, a separate article is unnecessary as it basically repeats what is already written in the main article about the series. Cavarrone (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage for this film by reliable sources or even semi-reliable porn industry sources. Fails WP:NFILM and it would also fail a PORNBIO-style extension of the notability guidelines. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But there isn't an extension like that; that's my point. How can you say it would fail the extension if no such extension exists?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 20:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PORNBIO requires winning a well known award or a credible acknowledgement of unique contributions to porn. Young Lesbians in Love lacks both. In fact, the article claims nothing that would distinguish this film from hundreds of other porn films. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you added Foreplay Loving Lesbians to this discussion. It has the exact same problem as Young Lesbians in Love. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Plot? Mise en scène? Tepid pace? LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 05:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage for this film by reliable sources or even semi-reliable porn industry sources. Fails WP:NFILM and it would also fail a PORNBIO-style extension of the notability guidelines (per Gene93k). Next time send me a promotional copy and I'll tell you in advance whether there is any hope. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Girls Kissing Girls; there's really no evidence of independent notability for each episode. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No general notability, no NFILM notability. Not even fap-worthy, Women Seeking Women series is much better. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fap"-worthy? What?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability concerns discussed above. Note that I have also added Girls Kissing Girls 3 to this AfD.  Feel free to remove it if that article doesn't fit in this AfD for some reason.  &mdash;SW&mdash; spout 15:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why Girls Kissing Girls 3? That was nominated for an award, as the article clearly states.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:NFILM says that films which were nominated for an award (but did not win) are notable? If anyone else besides the author of the article believes part 3 shouldn't be included in this nomination, I'll gladly remove it.  &mdash;SW&mdash; spout 17:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What part says they aren't? Just because one or two films in a series may be non-notable (for example) doesn't mean all the films in the series are.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The part which says that a film is probably notable if it "...has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." I don't think it's specifically necessary for the guideline to elucidate that "articles which were nominated for an award but lost are probably not notable".  &mdash;SW&mdash; talk 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is necessary, if you're trying to use that as an argument. What is it with users in this discussion arguing points that don't exist?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 20:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. My point is that it's not valid to say something like, "WP:NFILM doesn't specifically state that films which have been nominated for an award (but didn't win) are not notable, therefore this film must be notable because it has been nominated for an award and didn't win it."  By the same logic, you could say that "WP:NFILM doesn't specifically state that lesbian porno films starring someone named Samantha aren't notable, therefore this film must be notable because it is a lesbian porno film starring someone named Samantha."  The logic makes no sense.  I think it is more than clear that NFILM draws a line at films which have won a major award.  Since it is more difficult to win an award than it is to simply be nominated for an award, it logically follows that simply being nominated for an award would not establish the notability of that film per WP:NFILM.  By the same token, one of the criteria for notability of baseball athletes is that they have played for a major league team.  Therefore, notability would not be established for someone who simply tried out for the team but was not hired, despite the fact that WP:BASEBALL/N doesn't specifically spell that out.


 * So, I think it's clear that the film is not notable per WP:NFILM, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's definitely not notable; it could still be notable if it passes WP:GNG. &mdash;SW&mdash; gab 00:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "Samantha" logic really does make no sense, and you're way off if you think that's the point I was trying to make.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

**WP:PORNBIO says that a pornographic actor is considered notable if s/he "has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years". This film series has been nominated for well-known awards in multiple years, so how is it different?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, and note that I've also nominated the parent article Girls Kissing Girls. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I may just be confused, but it seemed to be that Girls Kissing Girls 2: Foreplay Loving Lesbians (also on today's AfD list) was closed as a Keep?  I was a bit surprised by that, but not sure how a sequel (which is normally less notable) would be a keep, but the first film a delete (as this is clearly heading for)? --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Girls Kissing Girls 2 was a procedural close so that it could be bundled into this discussion. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all; insufficient notability (and not really practical to source enough content for standalone articles either, in my view) bobrayner (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you saying if independent sources are found, they shouldn't be added?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 20:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as stand-alone articles after merging the relevant info to the Girls Kissing Girls article (assuming that survives AfD). Tabercil (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all as not notable. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2011 (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.