Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women of Fear Factor


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Women of Fear Factor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

not notible, weak references found  Alan  -  talk  01:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Inane cash-in DVD collecting dust in bargain bins at...ahem, certain stores and warehouses everywhere from a show forgotten from only five years ago. Why this ever needed an article is beyond me.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Sourcing exists via Daytona Beach News-Journal, DVDTown, MovieWeb, and DVD Movie Guide. The last three are redlinked, these publications are used in other WP articles as secondary sources. Google Books also shows this DVD was mentioned in title Girls gone skank: the sexualization of girls in American culture, by author Patrice Oppliger. This would be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. riffic (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't see how any of these sources meets guidelines for serious, independent, in-depth coverage of the subject. That a few guides acknowledge that this DVD exists is no excuse to have an article on it. — Chromancer  talk/cont 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Daytona reference is from a review in a print newspaper. Having a review published in a newspaper such as this would establish notability. I don't have access to the full article because it's behind a paywall but it appears to be mostly about the DVD (I'd love to have a researcher with news archival access verify this before throwing a !vote here) riffic (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * another note: the sources that are redlinked are mostly reviews as well, which all offer serious, independent in-depth coverage of the subject. Their only fallbacks are they don't have their own articles on WP so their reliability is unknown (but I would not use that as a reason to discount their usefulness as a source to establish notability) riffic (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the 'redlinks' are't sources as they don't exist, which is why they are RED. Can you please stop trying to annoy people in afd discussions, it's going to get you nowhere but off wikipedia (and you have warnings about it from others already on your talk page). Alan  -  talk  22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to annoy people in afd discussions, I am legitimately trying to contribute to the project. Please, support your accusations with evidence of acting in bad faith, if that is your intention. otherwise, take this to another venue (as it is not relevant to THIS discussion) riffic (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Who wants a pair of buffalo testicles and a fly milkshake, anyway? (Yes, I watched a couple of episodes when bored.)  Also fails WP:N.  CycloneGU (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak-ish keep as per the sources discussed by Riffic. Just like to point out that the fact a website has an article on here does not make it a reliable source, and conversely the fact that it is 'redlinked' does not make it an unreliable source. The existance of a review in The Daytona Beach News-Journal is quite suggestive of notability, but I have my doubts as to their reliability of the other sources. From DVDTOWN.com 'about' page it appears to have editorial oversight, and as such is good enough for me. doom gaze   (talk)  22:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. A review and a half, that's not a whole lot, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Riffic. However, Critical reception can not be based on a single review, that section has to be merged or rewritten.Cavarrone (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Negligible editorial coverage. It might be appropriate to mention this in the Fear Factor article, but I don't see any of the actual content here being suitable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2011 (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.