Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Several sources have been provided, but people disagree about their relevance for WP:GNG.  Sandstein  06:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of notability, minor award nomination. All standard adult film coverage. Previous PROD ended in deletion in 2022. Article was recreated this year. Donald D23  talk to me  22:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Sexuality and gender,  and United States of America.  Donald D23   talk to me  22:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. In mainstream media:
 * Various mainstream media echoed (more or less briefly) the production of this parody: IGN, ContactMusic at least.
 * Emma Watson, who played one of the characters in the original film, is said to have enjoyed meeting the actor who plays this parody version of her role.  (this news received a lot of attention, and various other articles on the Internet covered the encounter.)
 * A tongue-in-cheek article in the Chicago Tribune quotes the title of the film in a reflexion about the weight of porn in men's fantasies.
 * Le Journal de Montréal mentions the film as an exemple in the trend of porn parodies, lists the awards the film has won and translates its title in French as "Potter le putassier et les boules du sorcier"

--


 * I would say that for a porn film this shows notability. For what it's worth, the film is also mentioned in Lauren Rosewarne's Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes (Springer, 2019), p. 226. I didn't search that hard so there is probably much more. But I guess there's enough to write a rather good page.

— MY, OH, MY ! 23:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh Good God Keep Please That plot description is the hardest I've ever laughed at a Wikipedia article, and Yank's reflist appears to satisfy the GNG. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, the Journal de Montreal and the Chicago Paper seem ok. I wouldn't say Emma Watson liking the film ads to notability, but certainly ads colour to the story. Oaktree b (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The subtle link to “semen” from the part about magic liquid in the titular balls did make me laugh pretty hard Dronebogus (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not pass the GNG due to lack of significant coverage by RS. The IGN and Contactmusic articles are about another parody production, This Ain't Harry Potter XXX. Journal de Montreal is not RS being a sensationalist tabloid. Chicago Tribune is a letter column and a silly name drop. The emma watson meeting bit is trivial coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rectified the mentions of pages about This Ain't Harry Potter XXX indeed— MY, OH, MY ! 09:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * in non mainstream media, a review in Fleshbot titles ’“Whorrey Potter” Is the Most Important 3D Movie Since “Avatar” (this might be a bit of a bombastic statement but if you look up for the page, be aware it is very much NSFW ); this review laments the absence of any real sex scene during the first 20 minutes of the film. And there is one review in Manhunt Daily titled: ’Whorrey Potter: 9 & 3/4 Reasons That You’ll Be Holding Your Wand And Shouting “Erectus!” (this review mentions Chelsea Lately talking about the film but I could not verify that; again I don’t link the page as it has not safe for work content—  MY, OH, MY ! 09:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I'm at work, so I'll take My Oh My's word on the sources, I think overall we have just enough to !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable porn film as shown by Mushy Yank. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur with Morbidthoughts (who works in the adult industry) that this does not appear to be notable, the coverage is sensational and trivial. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Non-reliable sources or brief namedrops do not establish notability. The citations provided by "Mushy Yank" are useless. Zaathras (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2023 (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.