Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Heartbreakers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Petros471 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Heartbreakers[edit]
- Delete. I do not believe this article describes a film sufficiently notable to merit its own article. — Mike • 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per my comments in other nominations above regarding censorship and notability. I will not repeat in order to avoid breaching WP:POINT. Agent 86 06:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First, Mike, it seems like 80% of those could be prodded and should not appear on AfD unless they're contested. Second, Agent 86,
yes, you're way in WP:POINT territory.As you point out, what is under discussion here is the article, not the nominator. Some nominators help their case by making a pitch for deletion, others don't. But in the end it has to be the article to make its case for inclusion, not the nominator for exclusion. If you're voting keep on an article without merit because you have an issue with the nominator you're disrupting WP to make your point. ~ trialsanderrors 08:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Follow up. Please note that I in no way made any issue about the nominator or any sort of ad hominem argument. My issue is clearly with the article. My concern about WP:POINT was that I might be verging on the edge of it by responding to each nomination; however, the nominator chose to make multiple nominations and therefore there is nothing wrong with responding to each. On re-reading POINT I see that, in my opinion, I've done nothing contrary to it. In any event, I think I succinctly made my position clear that I am commenting (not voting, as AfD is not a vote) on the articles and was civil about it. Please assume good faith. Agent 86 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK. I was saying this mostly because you pointed it out yourself, but I'll strike it and apologize. Nevertheless, stick with the articles at hand and not the nomination. Articles have to provide proof positive and not nominators proof positive. If you don't think WP:NN is a viable criterion, stick to checking whether WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV are fulfilled. WP:NN is only a shorthand for saying that the article hasn't attracted enough outside attention to meet those three policies. ~ trialsanderrors 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was kind. You're a good person, Charlie Brown. Agent 86 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You too, Linus. BFF? ~ trialsanderrors 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was kind. You're a good person, Charlie Brown. Agent 86 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK. I was saying this mostly because you pointed it out yourself, but I'll strike it and apologize. Nevertheless, stick with the articles at hand and not the nomination. Articles have to provide proof positive and not nominators proof positive. If you don't think WP:NN is a viable criterion, stick to checking whether WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV are fulfilled. WP:NN is only a shorthand for saying that the article hasn't attracted enough outside attention to meet those three policies. ~ trialsanderrors 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up. Please note that I in no way made any issue about the nominator or any sort of ad hominem argument. My issue is clearly with the article. My concern about WP:POINT was that I might be verging on the edge of it by responding to each nomination; however, the nominator chose to make multiple nominations and therefore there is nothing wrong with responding to each. On re-reading POINT I see that, in my opinion, I've done nothing contrary to it. In any event, I think I succinctly made my position clear that I am commenting (not voting, as AfD is not a vote) on the articles and was civil about it. Please assume good faith. Agent 86 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. I recall this was one of the more notable pornographic films that Traci Lords starred in. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_Blue_28_(second_nomination) - which was kept around on much weaker grounds. Only a "weak" keep until I can find documentation saying so, but my memory tells me this was one of her more famous films before the scandal. Side note, Agent 86 is doing nothing wrong in his comments and recommendations. Nominator has nominated a slew of articles for deletion all at once, with the exact same explanation or lack thereof for each one. Rather than assuming each to be trying to disrupt the Wikipedia, I'm assuming good faith for both. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, enough notable performers in this one... Traci Lords alone would make this notable in the genre.--Isotope23 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I didn't know there existed a move with Amber Lynn, Traci Lords, Peter North, and Ron Jeremy. That's about as notable as it gets in porn. PseudoAnon 06:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very minor production. Calsicol 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Vegaswikian 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.