Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slutty and Sluttier


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 21:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Slutty and Sluttier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is 100% entirely sourced to the Adult Film Database and IAFD. Without even a single reliable source cited, it's hard to see what the argument for keeping the article would be. David in DC (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article could definitely use some better sources, but the two AVN wins for Best Gonzo Series should be enough for it to pass WP:NFILMS.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 11:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if the only source that says so is IAFD or the Adult Film Database.? David in DC (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added links for the two awards to the AVN Award winners pages from '09 and '11. But that still leaves everything else on the page sourced to AFD and IAFD. And the AVN Award winners pages are, I think, primary sources. Which would make citing to them original research. Does an article survive AfD when almost everything on the page is sourced to non-WP:RSes and the rest is the result of original research? The whole page looks like an advertisement for the series, not an encyclopedic article. Shouldn't it at least require actual coverage of the series in reliable sources, rather than just cast lists from IAFD and AFD, and a bare mention of the two awards sourced only to AFD and the AVN Past Awards pages.  There's not even a news report from AVN (magazine).David in DC (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The AVN wins are really all you need to pass notability. If you think all the other info constitutes original research, simply get rid of it.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the AVN Award wins that are original research. I can find no reporting about them. Not even in AVN magazine. I've sourced them to the AVN Awards history page.  That's a primary source.  So if I take out all the AFD and IAFD refs as not being reliable sources and I take out the AVN Awards history pages as refs because they're primary sources, we're left with an article that does nothing but list films and casts, unsourced and list 2 awards, unsourced. How does one source the awards if even AVN magazine doesn't report them? David in DC (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * AVN Magazine doesn't always list the award wins and nominees in detail, but avnawards.avn.com always do, and primary sources are where you're supposed to find proof of award wins (that's exactly how pornographic actors are tested for their notability; see WP:PORNBIO). If a primary source is used only to fuel hype about the subject, for example, that would probably be discouraged. BTW, since you added the sources yourself, I'm now confused as to why you still think the article should be deleted.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 09:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I added them because you said they awards clinch notability. I don't think an article should be deleted if, during discussion of the deletion, someone sugests a way to rescue it.  It's not derogatory, so adding it is no problem, for the time being.  But, even with the refs, I don't think the article should survive.  I know what PORNBIO says about the awards, but I don't agree that "...primary sources are where you're supposed to find proof of award wins.... If a primary source is used only to fuel hype about the subject, for example, that would probably be discouraged." I can't find that exception for award wins.  I think they have to be reported somewhere, in a secondary source.  I could be wrong. I guess that's up to the closer. In sum:  I think the article is in the best shape it can be, and I think, in that shape, it should be deleted. David in DC (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The AVN "Best Gonzo Series" award is not "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" as required under WP:NFILM, but one of the legion of junk trophies the magazine parcels out to its advertisers (clearly signalled by the point that it's not even important enough for AVN to mention in its main news coverage). In the utter absence of any RS-coverage of the subject, deletion is called for. WP:NOTDIR also weighs in for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, HW, there is no real guideline for pornographic films specifically, so your statement that the Gonzo Series award doesn't qualify seems to merely be your own opinion. And as for WP:NFILMS, I think you missed the part of the section that says: "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits." BTW, how does WP:NOTDIR play into this? (And if you're going to respond uncivilly like you usually do, don't respond at all.)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 19:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Just enough coverage to be notable. NickCochrane (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking note that all of the refs on the page right now are to AFD and IAFD, which are, by definition, not reliable sources and the AVN Awards page, which in my view is very different from AVN news reporting, not a WP:RS and something which, if used, may violate WP:NOR, please indicate what coverage you mean. (A) If it's the AVN awards page, that's cool, we just differ and it's up to the closer to decide who's right. (B) If it's AFD or IAFD, then, again, it's for the closer to decide, but I'd be astonished (and troubled) if they sufficed. (C) If it's some other source, especially one that's not in the article yet and is inarguably a WP:RS, that would be best of all.  If you insert it, and I agree it's a WP:RS, that would affect my position. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NFILMS in my view; I don't consider the AVN Awards "major", as the guideline specifies.  Mini  apolis  22:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That you don't consider the AVN Awards major isn't a valid criterion for deletion; see this discussion.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 00:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PORNBIO has different criteria than WP:NFILMS; it only requires a "well-known and significant industry award" (or several nominations), which would include AVN. AfD is not a war zone.  Mini  apolis  02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But as I stated earlier, there is no real guideline for pornographic films specifically, and AVN is a well-known and significant industry award--actually, what you just stated proves my point. (BTW, what's the point of bringing up WP:NWZ? I made a simple comment, not an attack.)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 05:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there's no guideline specific to pornographic films, the relevant one is WP:NFILMS. I brought up WP:NWZ not because of a personal attack, but any consensus we're trying to reach here is being drowned out by arguments with those who don't agree with you. All the best,  Mini  apolis  19:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep FWIW, I just finished editing the article in question to the best of my ability. With 4 awards & over 20 other nominations (complete with references that I could find), I agree that this series has "just enough coverage to be notable". Guy1890 (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Thanks. For reasons I'll state in a moment, I don't think it's enough to rescue the article, but I do believe that an article should be put into the best shape it can be so that, if retained, it's improved and, if deleted, we know it had it's best shot. In the one instance where you made another wiki-page a ref, I've moved it into the article as a wikilink. And now, the dreaded "but": But, all of the new refs are to the AVN Awards site, not AVN News. I don't think that's sufficient. IAFD, AFD, and primary sources are not enough. IAFD and AFD are not reliable sources. Refs to several AVN Awards pages is not significant coverage in secondary sources. The Awards pages, I believe, are primary sources. And I concur with Hullabaloo here about these awards being among "...the legion of junk trophies the magazine parcels out to its advertisers (...clearly signalled by the point that it's not even important enough for AVN to mention in its main news coverage.)" [My emphasis added.] On another note, I'm persuaded by the WP:NWZ essay that I should stop rebutting after this. David in DC (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I consider the multiple AVN awards to satisfy NFILMS. Also the multiple movies in the series have been reviewed enough by expert critics in the field to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Examples Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2013 (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.