Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throat Gaggers


 * 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 per information noted later in the discussion. Shell babelfish 08:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Throat Gaggers
Delete (see below) Non-notable movie series, with no sources. Prod was removed without comment. Also note the author of this article has proposed it as a featured article candidate Gwernol 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes it is my article and this movie series is a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography. Plus, others have worked on the article.  Just check the history.Courtney Akins 02:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of editors is irrelevant. The issue is this movie series is non-notable. If you disagree, please provide independent sources for the notability of the movies. Thanks, Gwernol 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like it doesn't make it non notable. I am sure the number of overwhelming keep votes that will be cast will prove your position untenable.Courtney Akins 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, the "prod" was removed by my friend after he improved the article, thanks.Courtney Akins 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And asking for "independent sources" for notability is a bit much and sets a dangerous precedent. I am certain you will be proven wrong by the many voters.Courtney Akins 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a dangerous precedent. Its how Wikipedia works. Please read the central notability guideline that helps us decide which articles should be included in the encyclopedia. You should also read our core policy on verifiability that requires all information added to articles be verifiable. Finally, you should know that this is a discussion, not a vote. Even if you get a lot of your friends to "vote" keep here it doesn't matter unless you can back up the opinions from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please read WP:AFD for more details. Gwernol 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per Gwernol. If you're going to spend your time and energy debating the community instead of editing the article to meet the verifiability and notability guidelines, then the article justly deserves deletion. Girolamo Savonarola 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I was just "debating" one person, not the "community."Courtney Akins 02:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete' Article appears to have be started by head of company, fails Notability (pornographic actors) which I believe is the best criteria in this situation.  Canadian - Bacon  (contribs) 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I AM NOT the head of the pornographic company that makes these films. In addition, the "Notability" guidlines WP:N alluded to above is just an essay not a policy, and furthermore these films are notable anyway, you will see when its kept.Courtney Akins 02:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And did you read WP:V, which is not an essay, but policy? Girolamo Savonarola 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are you saying this line of films does not even exist?Courtney Akins 03:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Courtney, your crystal ball is broken; this will in all likelihood get deleted. It's non-notable, unsourced, and unverified. Opabinia regalis 03:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Suppose this was real, what makes it notable or above the bar from any and all other pornographic films? If we had an article on every pornography the site would crash. This is a reason for the guidelines so that we can have something managable to work with. This is an unsourced article that really doesn't tell us why this it is exceptional. Sorry, try again after you familarize yourself with how to write an article. Yank  sox  03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum to keep. Google shows over 480,000 hits for the "Throat Gaggers" series of movies.  They have been reviewed extensively on various Adult DVD movie sites as well.  This is all verifiable. :) xoxo.Courtney Akins 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, but is it important? Yank  sox  03:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because no evidence of notability is given, and the article appears to fail WP:OR, WP:V and WP:CITE - the trifecta of Wikipedia policies. Please note that improving the article is the only way to remedy this problem, however, I highly doubt that it is possible to improve it sufficiently. Tuf-Kat 04:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as TUF-KAT et al. *gags* - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per TUF-KAT — NM  Chico  24  [[Image:Flag of New Mexico.svg|25px]] 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Burn with fire of course... "Courtney" spammed my talk page with an innocent hello message. Gee wiz.  "Xoxo, baby" somewhere else and take your advertising elsewhere.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable Brian 04:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * I was hoping there was an article about the company that produced the series, since if there was, we could have merged all of this stuff together. But since there isn't, delete with no hard feelings for User:Courtney Akins. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable and lacking sources. - Duane 05:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tuf-Kat. Sandstein 08:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete is a troll. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Week keep I am not sure about notablity but as far as verifialbe, the movie itself a source. When there is an article about a telvision episode we don't require the article to cite a newspaper or magizine that talks about the show - the actual show is the source. Jon513 10:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Because many TV shows have articles for their episodes, the current WP:V policy sets itself up for a serious violation of WP:POINT because of the precedent that would be established here if this content is deleted (some of which has been recognized as top-500 by a retail website). Just something to think about; some here seem to be applying policy more forcefully to this article than they would elsewhere; Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jon513 is wrong. Please point to the anything in WP:V, WP:CITE, or WP:RS that says "the actual show" can be the source. It cannot. We do require articles about television shows to cite sources. It's true that many of them don't, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and compliance with the verifiability policy is uneven. This is to be expected. Wikipedia is inconsistent. If you want consistency, work on a command-and-control encyclopedia. Meanwhile, if it is true that there are articles on television shows that cite no sources other than the shows themselves, then someone needs to get to work on those articles and cite sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Doesn't seem notable enough. Th ε Halo Θ 12:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Eusebeus 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Fieari 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, though it's popular within the genre. I agree with Jon513's comment, however, that an article about a primary source does not necessarily need a secondary source, unless for some reason someone might doubt it exists. 23skidoo 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless improved massivly: non-notable, unsourced, and unverified as it stands. WegianWarrior 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing vote as of 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC); see below. These movies are verifiable at cduniverse.com, which is the link I added when cleaning up this article. Follow the link, enter the site, sort by title and browse to page 7 to find about a dozen of these movies, two of which rank on the site's top 500 (denoted by icons). failed to assume good faith when removing my link, stating "Remove commercial link", and then went on to assert that the article is unsourced. Check my contributions; I'm not here to make money from an article—I'm choosing to spend energy improving content rather than deleting where if possible. The two movies in the top 500 are criteria enough to have the Red Light District label article per WP:CORP which ought to be the relevant notability essay here, and let me remind you that notability is not policy or guideline; it is an essay and should not be sufficient evidence for deletion in and of itself. Previous keep votes have established verifiablity, and hopefully the verifying links will not also be removed. External links point to information not included in the article; over time these will migrate to references. Bear in mind that this is a new article and as a stub cannot be expected to qualify for WP:GA status. Verifiability is not being spoon fed here but the article is still clearly discussing a subject that exists and is more or less accurately doing so.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was not a failure to assume good faith. Please see WP:EL especially the section "Links normally to be avoided" which includes "Links that ... primarily exist to sell products or services... colloquially known as external link spamming." Since CDUniverse is a shopping site it is a commercial link that should generally be removed. The issue of verifiability is not around whether this movie series exists, but whether it can be verified that it has some independent merit (aka notability). Some reviews or awards to show that it meets notability criteria similar to WP:PORN BIO would be very helpful if you want this kept. I don't see how having two movies in CDUniverse's top 500 meets the WP:CORP criteria; perhaps you could expand on that. Gwernol 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be keenly interested to see what part of WP:V talks about merit and notability. As far as the top 500, this makes the entry at cduniverse.com more than a simple price listing (it is also denoting popularity) which means that it is a non-trivial published work. It's not concrete proof of notability, but it can't be ignored without thought. Keep in mind you're nitpicking the letter of what isn't even a guideline, rather than the spirit of it (i.e. notability is not policy). Please stick to policy and guidelines as your primary reason for deletion. I reassert that verifiability goes only as far as finding sources which verify the information in the article. The sources need not say anything that the article doesn't.  Big Nate 37 (T) 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy here isn't WP:V. There are good verifiable sources for the existence of the films. The relevant policy is WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unless good verifiable sources are cited to show, not that the films exist&mdash;that's not at issue&mdash;but that it is indeed, as Courtney Akins asserts, "a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography." As noted above, WP:NOT says, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." For Deep Throat, one can cite Blumenthal, Ralph (1973), "Pornochic," The New York Times, Jan 21, 1973, pg. 272, "It has drawn an average of 5,000 people weekly to the New Mature World Theatre on West 59th Street here, including celebrities, diplomats, critics, businessmen, women alone, and dating couples, few of whom, it might be presumed, would have previously gone to see a film of sexual intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus. It has become a premiere topic of cocktail-party and dinner-table conversation in Manhattan drawing rooms, Long Island beach cottages, and ski country A-frames. It has, in short, engendered a new kind of porno chic." There are about thirty relevant articles in the New York Times that mention "Deep Throat" and "Lovelace," including the April 22, 2002 obituary for Linda Boreman. Where are any comparable references for Throat Gaggers? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. A search of an online database containing the full text of The New York Times returns these results: ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) No documents found for: ("throat gaggers") Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bet that was a search you never thought you would be making. Eusebeus 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the exact policy reads as follows:
 * 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
 * 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
 * 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
 * If there are no editors who are going to actually edit the article to fulfull requirement 3, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Girolamo Savonarola 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been cited and written about in the sites mentioned above.Courtney Akins 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which of those sites is the one that that says that, as you put it, "this movie series is a very important and notable series in the annals of contemporary pornography?" A quick check of several of the imdb references, such as this one, shows no information about the movie other than the cast listings. Not even any user ratings. You ask us to believe these movies are important, yet apparently no imdb user has bothered to rate it. There is only a single external review, in DVD Talk, and the review says nothing about its being of any importance in the annals of contemporary pornography. It says basically that it is an "oral only film" and that people who enjoy such films will likely enjoy this one. It notes that the film isn't very grainy, and that the lighting could have used a little work but "it's not really bad." How does this add up to an important porn film? It hasn't even been reviewed seriously. For some of the films in this series, imdb lists no reviews at all.


 * By comparison, imdb's article on The Devil in Miss Jones leads to five external reviews, including this one by Roger Ebert, in which he calls it "The best hard-core porno film I've seen" and says of Georgina Spelvin "there burns in her soul the spark of an artist, and she is not only the best, but possibly the only, actress in the hard-core field."


 * What sources say the "Throat Gaggers" series is of any importance at all? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability has been produced. BlueValour 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Changing my vote to delete per comments and responses from Dpbsmith. With the reasons you've provided, the policy you've referred to, and thought I've given the issue, I now believe deletion of this material is justified by policy.  Big Nate 37 (T) 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:PORN BIO and WP:NN for no awards/reviews by reputable sources. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 07:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, they are commercially released films, they are mentioned at places like IMDb, and according to someone above they get a whole ton of Google hits. Seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. Everyking 10:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Such is the problem with notability criteria on Wikipedia; there is no real consensus on what they are. WP:NOT an indiscriminant collection of information #7 (plot summaries) seems to qualify this article for deletion though, and unlike WP:NOTE, WP:NOT is policy.  Big Nate 37 (T) 10:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. If it is only a "plot summary" (where is the plot summary here, by the way? Does describing the focal sexual act of the films qualify as a plot summary?), then the solution is not to delete it but to add other things besides a plot summary. In fact this article already includes other things. Everyking 10:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for pornography, describing the focal sexual act often (and in this case) is a plot summary. If there are parts missing, then it is even less than a plot summary. There is no sourced analysis; the only line that qualifies as achievements is lacking citation. So as I see it, without a source verifying something to the effect of the work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, it fails WP:NOT. As mentioned above, the onus of providing sources lies on the editor who adds content; not on the editor who questions the content added. It is easy to say that the solution is to add other things; saying it won't change the article. I've tried to come up with sources for others' work and fix the article rather than delete it, I can't. Oh, and I changed the indentation to list format, hope you don't mind—it's shallower.  Big Nate 37 (T) 11:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam JBKramer 11:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dpbsmith. --Icarus (Hi!) 02:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - No solid reason to delete thus far given. On what grounds is this an indiscriminant collection of data? If this was an article about the length of toes, that would be indiscriminent.  This however is about a major movie series. 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.smith (talk • contribs)
 * Oh, woops. I put to many "~"s . ---J.S (t|c) 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the article presents no evidence to support the claim that it is, in fact, a major movie series. Or, in wikispeak, that it's notable. --Icarus (Hi!) 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Please bear in mind that Courtney Akins is a newcomer of less than a week; please don't bite the newcomers. I've added wikilinks to other relevant articles here and additional external links to sites containing more information about the series. As one of my additions states, the first film in the series received an AVN Award, and all the films are highly rated by AVN. (Receiving an award is one of the "notability" criterion at Notability (pornographic actors); however, that is a proposed guideline, not policy.) The article is still a stub and needs additional work, but I think these edits deserve a second look, at least. &mdash; Chidom   talk   07:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now with this new information the notability is verfiable and obvious, so this discussion should be closed with a Keep.Courtney Akins 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Per Chidom. --Dweller 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, won an AVN award and passes any reasonable requirement for notability. Kappa 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per AVN award, and strongly recommend closing admin keep in mind how late this evidence came to light. I also concur with Everyking and am not convinced a description of sexual activity amounts to a plot summary. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering the AVN award, this article should probably be kept (I promise I'll stop switching sides on this one), but I'm still not convinced that describing the act can be anything but a plot summary, and is much less than a full plot summary, thus making the description of the act on its own even less worthy of existence as an article as a plot summary would be.  Big Nate 37 (T) 03:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment From what I could find in trying to clean up the article, the emphasis of this series is definitely the act itself, and may qualify as a sub-sub-genre of the "oral" sub-genre (assuming such exists, I'm a bit out of my element, here). That being the case, what else (generally) should be in an article along those lines? (By the way, if you're going to stop switching sides, I'll stop cleaning up articles that I don't particularly care about. ;-P So there.) &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep won an AVN award... that makes it notable.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 17:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whole different comment I'm not seeing evidence that many of the editors have revisited the article and reviewed their recommendation since the article was cleaned up. Is this something that should be given some attention? Or do we generally just let the process well enough alone and hope that people who made a recommendation put this AfD article on their watchlist and are aware of the changes? In any case, it might be nice to have them add "reaffirm recommendation after changes" to their original comments. Just a thought. &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And another Unless I can't count, this is eligible to be closed; it has been more than 5 days since its nomination. &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, it can be closed. However, admins aren't paid, so you can't yell at them for being late on this one; it's all voluntary.  I'd close it, but as I've participated in the debate, I won't. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since notability has been provided through the AVN award, I agree this should be kept. Gwernol 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Since this is a discussion and not a vote, the closing administrator should pay close attention to the comments made by those who have not visisted this article since it has been revised.  AVN award winning titles are obviously notable.  RFerreira 21:19, 21 August 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.