Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How to Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle


 * 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 of the debate was merge to Violet Blue (author). --Ezeu 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How to Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle
Delete or Merge and Redirect. Notability of the book itself is not established. Any current claim of notability is mainly due to the notability of the author, Violet Blue, and not the actual published material itself. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge&mdash;and use as redirect&mdash;as the Violet Blue article isn't very long, but certainly not delete. I think it's splitting hairs a bit to say the author is notable but the author's book isn't. Tyrenius 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it is drawing arbitrary distinctions to suggest that an author might be notable, but their work not notable. - Richardcavell 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Violet Blue, unless some evidence exists of the book's notability apart from the author (i.e., critical or economic success). Amazon lists 14 titles by Violet Blue--do they all deserve articles?  Maybe they do, but I think the content of the nominated article would strengthen the Violet Blue page. -- Scientizzle 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Scientizzle. mg e kelly 05:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per numerous above. Rockpocket (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If an author is notable, their works are notable.  Additional comment - this must be an awfully short book.  How far can you stretch "1) turn on TV.  2) Put video in player.  3) Watch.  4) Um... you know. Play with your... um... your hoo-hah.  Or your partner's hoo-hah. 5) Switch off TV & video"??? Vizjim 08:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that additional comment. I needed that. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or redirect – as specified above – Gurch 11:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Scientizzle. Paddles 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Violet Blue Brother William 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * M&R - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirectper nom. It is not true that "If an author is notable, their works are notable." Notice that we're not talking about Shakespeare or even Stephen King, here, whose works probably do deserve an article each - this is a much less important author. Specific counter-example would be, oh, Joe Shuster. He himself is quite notable for his books about Superman, but not each and every of the thousands of Superman books that he ever wrote deserves an article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per the above. But without the weblink to Amazon. Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to author's article per above. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per above -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 16:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge--Adrift* 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Palendrom 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * MergeThetruthbelow(talk) 23:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Individual books should have their own pages. It is systematic bias to arbitrarily consider certain books by certain authors unworthy of having their own page.Nick Dillinger 23:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Question All individual books? Only individual books of authors of note? -- Scientizzle 23:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Books that were published through non-vanity publications, such as this one. I also don't like the over re-drecting of Wikipedia books either.  Notability should be more lenient as well--Nick Dillinger 23:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it's not policy, but WP:N does contain the following definition - Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. Now the thing about "The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos" is that it seems to me to sit right on the border of noteability.  And, as Wikipedia isn't paper, that for me means a "keep" vote. Vizjim 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I picked up the book off the shelves in the Vancouver public librarym, and I will add the ISBN to the artical.Nick Dillinger 03:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with Mr. Dillinger. Authors themselves will be the first to agree that some authors are more notable than others, and some books are more notable than others. The Wikipedia is not here to encourage the false idea that every collection of words between two covers is equally worthwhile. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with AnonEMouse. The tangible output from scientists are scholaraly papers, yet publishing a paper (even in the most illustrious journal) does not make a scientist or the paper notable. Publishing an important/seminal/high impact paper does. By the same token, why should all published books be inherently notable? Surely, as in any field, there are levels of notability. Placing the bar at all 'non-vanity publications' appears to be very low, compared to other disciplines. Rockpocket (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto for me. I envision book notability paralleling WP:MUSIC, i.e., notable books have won notable awards, been bestsellers and/or critical success [even Oprah book club (*cringe*)]...This situation is hazier because the author is famous not for being an author--I'm not a fan of the idea of every B-list (non-literary) celebrity book automatically gaining encyclopedic notability.  As for, books with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify, it's unfortunately nebulous.  Has this book ecliped an "average cookbook"?  Convince me and I'll change my vote. -- Scientizzle 20:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you deletionists just allow anyone who wants to create a article about a real, published book the ability to have a page on the book on Wikipedia. If nobody cares about the book, then the book would be non-notable by the fact that nobody wanted to create a page.  By the way, the navigation on amazon.com sucks, so using the resources and popularity of Wikipedia as a book database is the proper idea, but the world of knowledge would be worse off page if pages like this get deleted.--Nick Dillinger 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument for notability is a tautology--if one has written an article about a book, it is notable and should be kept; if there is no article about a book it is not notable and shouldn't have an article. And while your statement that "the world of knowledge would be worse off page if pages like this get deleted" may be true, and is certainly melodramatic, the vast majority of the voters here want to keep this information available, just on the Violet Blue article. -- Scientizzle 18:30, 20 May 2006 (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.