Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Babes
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 was no consensus, if only because the keeps are so hesitant. Sourcing is in order. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asian Babes[edit]
Porn magazine that has no notability and no verification. All I can figure out from here is that this magazing displays women of several ethnicities. Big whoop. Diez2 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It has to be said that this grot mag is fairly notable, if only because Private Eye constantly refers to this magazine in relation to its proprietor, Richard Desmond (qv that page). Richard W.M. Jones 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - entirely notable magazine that gets plenty of press mentions even in the staid Guardian here and here. The clincher is being commented on by the ubiquitous Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Indie here :-) TerriersFan 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep is mandatory to mention this per every article on Richard Desmond. Catchpole 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Loathsome as it may be, it is certainly notable. Emeraude 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very, Very Weak Keep and {{cleanup}}; additional work needs to be done on the article to include some sort of information that demonstrates the magazines' importance. A noted journalist saying she read it is borderline, at best; the journalist, while well-known and fairly controversial, doesn't cover pornography, so it's the published personal opinion of someone, not a newsworthy item regarding the magazine itself. As for the magazine being sold and who its current owner is, that's an example of newsworthy information—but content about why, when, and how it was sold needs to be explained/documented in the article, not just in the external links. The point of an encyclopedia article is to provide information. The point of the references is to be able to verify that information, not direct readers elsewhere to obtain the information itself.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability is not subjective and this one meets multiple published sources. Like the magazine itself or not, it's notable. Seraphimblade 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Spunk Loving Sluts is referenced far more in media coverage of Desmond, and should probably have its own article as well. As, presumably, should Mega Big Ones, Skinny and Wriggly, Double Sex Action and Mothers In Law, all of which I can find referenced in mainstream media seeking to do Richard Desmond down. WP:PORN, invoked here, must distinguish between coverage of Desmond and coverage of any one of his titles. The man is notable: the title is not. Delete and redirect to Richard Desmond. Vizjim 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm unclear what part of WP:PORN you're referring to? It seems mainly to deal with images. As to the other publications-yes, if they've received a large amount of mainstream coverage, they likely pass notability as well. Usually, things that are controversial have an -easier- time with notability-people write about them! Seraphimblade 16:02, 1 December 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.