Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Rosenthal


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Paula Rosenthal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't tell if this is a complete hoax, a spoof, a fantasy, a fictional character or what, but none of the sources check out and none of the claims show up except in Wikipedia mirrors. Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, etc., created by an SPA years ago, who vanished immediately afterwards. And I actually watched the "documentary" credits linked in the final reference, until I got to the screen where the dog attested to being of legal age and participating voluntarily, by pawprint. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —  Baseball   Watcher  17:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  —  Baseball   Watcher  17:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.  —  Baseball   Watcher  17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:HOAX. When I did a search for "Paula Rosenthal the inventor of modern sex" I found only wikipedia and mirror sites.  A simple search for Paula Rosenthal revealed only the Wikipedia site and other unrelated Paula rosenthal's. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. Nicely added references, only one of which actually mentions the subject - and that is in a sort of Swiss cinematic Youtube site. I don't think that this Paula Rosenthal is a hoax - not entirely - but I do think non-notable. Peridon (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if it isn't a hoax, certainty does not appear to be notable. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep So this article may be a hoax. Let us not not hold that against it without due consideration. Think, gentlemen, of the advantages Wikipedia would enjoy by the open promotion of hoax articles. A couple come to mind immediately:
 * I think we are all in agreement that BLP issues are of paramount importance to Wikipedia. Hoax articles offer no possibility of BLP violations. Anything written about a fictitious person, even including outright vandalism, affects no real person adversly.
 * We have the problem of editors who wish to contribute content. Though these editors are of a very small percentage in relation to the entire Wikipedia community, they offer a significant threat to BLPs. They can add unsourced information to BLPs. Even worse, they can add sourced information to BLPs. We all agree this is unacceptable behavior. So the encouragement of hoax articles will keep these editors busy while allowing us better people to work on making up and discussing rules, trying to get each other blocked, etc., without worrying about what these content-creators are doing. It's a win-win situation.
 * Frankly, given the ever-increasing barriers to work on articles on real people, I think hoaxes are truly the wave of the future for Wikipedia. I beg you to reconsider your positions. Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I never quite thought of it that way before. Perhaps we need to establish the Hoax Rescue Squadron or Hoaxes for Creation? Qrsdogg (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Rescue Squadron shouldn't be necessary if we are able to move consensus to approve "Hoax" as a criterion for Speedy Keep. Think about the ramifications of this: This would place the burden of proving the article is not a hoax on the shoulders of those wishing to delete it. They must provide significant coverage in secondary reliable sourcing proving the article is not a hoax. And, of course, the article can easily be kept by our stubborn refusal to accept any sourcing-- simply label it all "Unreliable", "Trivial", etc. In this way, also, articles on real subjects-- and therefore potential BLP violations-- would be more easily deleted, as the editors formerly wishing to keep them, would be busy working on their pet Hoax projects. No one would bother trying to find sourcing for articles on real subjects targeted for deletion-- why go through the hassle? Let them delete it so I can write my article on Barfloord Henfroodendeedle, the first Emperor of Doofnickle. As I said before, a win-win situation. Gentlemen, I repeat, Hoaxes are the future of Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - If we can verify the information I would say she was notable. Otherwise its just heresay. --Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This appears to be a hoax. If someone can provide verification of the claims made in the article, I'd change my vote.  --Oakshade (talk) 07:33, 5 July 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.