Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornosonic


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 23:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Pornosonic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A hoax, although not a conventional one, that nobody's picked up on for seven years. Not since Fadl Attraction have I seen a botch like this. Not a single statement in the article is true. Ron Jeremy wasn't making porn films in 1971, but got started nearly a decade later; Don Argott isn't a session musician, and wasn't even born until a year after his supposed meetup with Jeremy; and none of the porn films mentioned in the tracklists even exist. Argott is a real person who led a non-notable band of this name, which recorded a joke album, and this article is based on the humorous, but entirely fictional, advertising/hype for that album. Therefore, delete and redirect to Don Argott, where the band is already properly covered. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, probably speedy : the description in the article is derived from a direct copy/paste of the Amazon description, with very little modification. This looks like a novelty-album that took on a life of its own, which is another way of saying it's a hoax. A redirect is a good idea. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Issues have been addressed to my satisfaction. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - the album has been covered in at least two professional music magazines, I've added the refs to the article and rewritten the content accordingly. That it's fake is of no relevance, Wikipedia covers hoax when they are reliably sourced. Diego (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, I don't know that it's accurate to describe it as a "hoax", since the intent isn't to seriously deceive. With that said, I'm not sure that there is the necessary independent sourcing to push this over the WP:GNG line, although searching this on Google does turn up some somewhat unwholesome results, which makes it difficult.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. 's rewrite turned the hoax into an article about a hoax that exists outside of WP. The sources are pretty much run-of-the-mill music reviews, but they are independent of each other so I believe WP:GNG is satisfied. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a hoax article, but before Diego Moya rewrite cleaned it up, it appears like an editor was hoaxed into believing the album's hoax blurb was true (or was having fun by reproducing it as if it were true). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I fixed a bit more of it: it is not an album, but two albums, i.e., a musical project. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2014 (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.