Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm


 * 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    No Consensus to delete. If anything, there is a rough consensus below that some of this content should be kept but uncertainty about whether a stand-alone article is better or a merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article may fail to meet the notability requirements though Joe Phillips is a well established and notable gay / gay erotic cartoonist. Recently raised for PROD by another editor, I have converted to AfD for wider discussion. Ash (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   -- Ash (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary says "(Convert to an AfD rather than PROD due to new sources being found fairly easily)". If you don't believe it should be deleted through Prod, then you don't send it to the AFD instead.  That doesn't make any sense.  Only nominate something you believe should be deleted.   D r e a m Focus  19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The new source was to substantiate the award nomination. The fact that this nomination existed was already in the article that was PRODded. Nominations where the nominator is neutral are common practice. In this case I have upgraded the PROD to an AfD nomination in order to ensure wider discussion. Ash (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The new source was to substantiate the award nomination. The fact that this nomination existed was already in the article that was PRODded. Nominations where the nominator is neutral are common practice. In this case I have upgraded the PROD to an AfD nomination in order to ensure wider discussion. Ash (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. I'm not seeing any strong sources to support GNG, since the author is certainly notable a merge to the main article would seem to make the most sense for now. -- Banj e  b oi   01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep as noted below this seems to be the first American "fully-rendered and unsensored gay pornographic feature film". AfD should be kept open to allow this to be sourced or closed allowing article to be renomed at a later date if needed. -- Banj e  b oi   13:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILM. Epbr123 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep AVN/GayVN has long-standing consensus as notability for a pornographic film.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The film didn't win anything and there is no consensus that a single nomination confers notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletionism is the death of civility and participation in Wikipedia. So much talent is driven away by the pain it inflicts.  It's the reason I virtually hate it here. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With no insult intended, perhaps you should find something more enjoyable and rewarding to do with your time. Delicious carbuncle (talk)
 * With no insult intended, what kind of person finds deleting other peoples' work an enjoyable and rewarding way to spend their time? In fact, I do barely spend any time here as an editor anymore, only as a user.  I got notified of this AfD.  It's one of the few surviving articles I did a lot of work on, but apparently not for very much longer.  There are people who almost exclusively "contribute" to Wikipedia in a deletionist capacity, I wish there could be a rule that people had to use more edits creating than destroying.  But that's just me, I guess.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you aren't the only person who feels that way, but your view is at odds with the general consensus so you are setting yourself up for episodes such as this where you are going to feel frustrated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said... I do very little editing anymore. I worked on this article years ago, and only know about the AfD because I was notified on my talk page.  I visit Wikipedia as a user, though much less than I used to since two or three deletionists nuked thousands of anime-related articles.  I have taken myself out of the frustration game, but deletionism is still haunting me via notices to my talk page.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that this content belongs in the illustrator's article in a much abbreviated form. I was the editor who prodded the article, so feel free to take this as a delete vote. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge into Joe Phillips. Notability is questionable.-- Pink Bull  16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As per AvatarMN. This article is well-written and harmless and gets about 500 pageviews per month. Meets GNG for an obscure animated film that appeals to a minority. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What's GNG? I'm interested in anything that can save niche articles, I'd love to hear more.  Also this subject gets 8200 Google hits.  Notability may be scant among the majority, but there is great value to notability to a minority group (where this subject is very notable).  It seems to me there's a discrimination argument to be made against deleting.  500 Wikipedia page views a month, 8200 Google hits...  not notable to you /= not notable.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG, is general notability guideline - in essence we presume a subject to be notable once a threshold of independent reliable sources are found. These issues remain subjective but the spirit remains the same that they likely are notable even if the article doesn't yet include those sources and the article doesn't spell out how the subject is notable. Those are regular editing issues which are fixable. If no sources are available or no indication of notability can be reasonably shown then the issues are not fixable, at least not yet. In this case it seems the sources aren't readily available (although they may exist) but neither do we have to delete since the author's article can house any usable content. -- Banj e  b oi   09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't normally do Adf for films so did not know the exact guideline. WP:NOTFILM #1 and #2 and some basic common sense that this article adds to Wikipedia's educational value without any other major issues WP:SENSE. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at those WP:NOTFILM, this film is indeed a big part of the notable person Joe Phillips' career. And it has the unique accomplishment of being the first fully-rendered animated gay pornographic film (to date, only Pirate's Booty has followed it).  Phillips' The House of Morecock was crudely and simply rendered in Flash.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? "the first fully-rendered animated gay pornographic film"? If so I would say source that and keep. -- Banj e  b oi   17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Japanese did it before it in cell animation. But with the exception of Sensitive Pornograph (which came before S&R:TUO) it's all been soft-core or censored, and S&R:TUO is certainly not that.  So I guess "first fully-rendered, unsensored, American gay pornographic feature film"?  Er, is that getting a little too specific?  So far only one other video ticks all those boxes is Pirate's Booty (released after S&R:TUO).  I'm having a hard time finding a source for this, I just know because I've been paying close attention for a couple decades, having an acute interest in the very small world of gay animated porn, and I know my claim to be true.  So that may go down as frakking original research...  It's just a genre so small and so new that it's maybe not been discussed by what Wikipedia would call reliable sources yet.  There's an eventualist argument to be made for it.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment And that argument is that this will be regarded a genre starter in the future? - Stillwaterising (talk)
 * Well being the first American one in a confluence of emerging industries suggests yes. Maybe contact Joe Phillips and simply ask what media coverage exists? -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   13:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pirate's Booty has already copied it. And Phillips is at work on a new film.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Has anybody tried looking for Japanese sources? - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean for citations? Myself, I don't read Japanese.  Would Japanese sources be acceptable citations to satisfy notability and verifiability for English Wikipedia?  I follow English-speaking yaoi fandom, and am satisfied that I know about all the videos that come out.  But fansites aren't considered reliable sources.  I think the day is coming when Wikipedia may need to rethink its reliable sources rules, in this era where professional media is dying and there really isn't much in the way of professional, neutral publications.  And the lack of such doesn't mean nothing new is notable, and information about it is not verifiable.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources in other languages are certainly acceptable. If possible offering translations is helpful to other editors and readers looking through the refs. Some fansites may be reliable if they show a standard that meets RS, I think specifically that they show editorial control and fact-checking. -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - needs cleanup, but I think the subject has established enough notability to warrant a separate article. Airplaneman  talk 19:50, 19 March 2010 (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.