Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet & Wild: Slippery When Wet (2000)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wet & Wild: Slippery When Wet (2000)
This article is, first of all, nothing but a play-by-play of who gets nude and how they do it in one typical video in one of Playboy's many video series. I don't even know if a valid article could be written on the Wet & Wild series as a whole, and one isolated "volume" is certainly no basis for one. We might as well have articles on individual porn mag issues ("On page 36 of Busty, December 1997, Amber Waves removes her garter straps and poses contrapposto in front of a saddle.") Delete. Postdlf 23:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, there is a List of Playboy videos, which I think, with some cleanup, is an appropriate place to mention the various series in general, but not individual entries in each series. Postdlf 23:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, like Simpsons episode guides. See Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 00:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Though I'm glad to learn learn a new word ("contrapposto"). --Calton | Talk 00:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. But I do think that an article about the series might be appropriate. Lots of people watch these! Pornography, and particularly Playboy, is important to a lot of people - even if they are probably not (in general) the same people that read encyclopedias. Musser 00:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Kappa's comments. TigerShark 00:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Well I can't say that I've seen all the Playboy videos but I have the impression that there has been a significant change in Playboy's philosophy in the production of their videos from the early 90's to the present. In the early 90's the "Sexy Lingerie" and "Wet and Wild" series were produced and very popular. The production of these videos has completely stopped and we now have videos such as "Sorority Strip Party", "Sexy House Keepers", and "America's Sexiest Bartenders". It seems to me that Playboy is now more concerned with making a profit by producing these sleazy videos than producing tasteful, artistic, and erotic depictions of women. I hoped that in writing a detailed description of each of the Playboy videos one could get an impression of the change that has taken place in Playboy's view of women. I have taken your points into consideration and have removed the NPOV non-NPOV remarks from my article. I hope that other people will be able to contribute their ideas and improve the video articles.Jester2001 01:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jester2001's hair-splitting over "tastefully erotic" and "sleazy" notwithstanding, I fail to see the encyclopedic value of a T&A play-by-play.
 * Either keep or merge with an article called Wet and Wild or something of that sort. Either way, the scene-by-scene descriptions should go. Meelar (talk) 01:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Kappa and Meelar. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  01:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable T&A video Klonimus 03:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or shorten significantly and merge to List of Playboy videos. I have real trouble buying the parallel to the Simpsons.  Mwanner 11:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you read what Jester2001 said? This level of detail is extremely valuable to serious researchers, not just porn fans. Kappa 15:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, but serious researchers will turn to original source documents, not encyclopedia summaries. Mwanner 15:43, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * What? Wikipedia isnt good enough? :) Just kidding... Megan1967 09:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 17:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete DJ Clayworth 17:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not toilet paper.  RickK 23:00, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not paper either. See Wiki is not paper. Jester2001 15:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - the implications are mind-boggling - shall we have a play-by-play article of every episodic softcore production on the market? Even IMDB doesn't do that. (yes, I know, we're better than IMDB...). Enough to have one article on the genre and a list of the features. -- 8^D gab 13:37, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable video. Megan1967 06:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Borderline notable. And fun to read. Everyking 08:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are three issues here. One is, can we have an article on an individual work of art, literture or music.  Clearly the answer here is yes since we do it all the time.  The second is whether this specific video is worthy of its own article.  Little evidence has been provided about the notability of this particlar video; and we have not as a community set very clear standards.  However, I suspect that any video distributed through the channels of Playboy Enterprises Inc is likely to reach a lot of people.  Lots more, for example than many of our articles on underground rock bands.  Since Wikipedia is not paper, we should err on the side of inclusiveness, hence my vote to keep.  The third issue rased here is not about the existence of the article but about its content.  Is it consistent with our mission to have such a detailed discussion of what happens in the movie?  In some existing articles on movies or on individual episodes of "The Simpsons" we do have fairly detailed information.  Personally, I believe the current version of this article has too much detail, but that is really an issue for editing, it does not matter here on VfD.  Johntex 15:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I probably have to agree with you about the amount of detail in this article, but as you said this is an issue for editing. Jester2001 21:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep BUT clean up. There's a huge NPOV problem here. Lets have the standard literary analyses, response, etc. I see none of that in the article, and it seems the content is intentionally meant to be titillating? (It shouldn't.) Analyses like, its of this style (style in the sense of the delivery, ie. the movie Hero happens to be conducted in a manner which emphasises the fine actions of so and so...) as well as its obvious genre, and such. I don't mind individual articles on every magazine issue in the world, just as long as its encyclopedic. This one isn't at the moment, but can be fixed. -- Natalinasmpf 00:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.