Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikini Cavegirl (2nd nomination)
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 keep. tended for a consensus to keep since the relist and WP:V/WP:RS/WP:N JForget 21:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Bikini Cavegirl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was sent to AFD in 2006, the result was no consensus. The reasons for keeping were rather weak such as "More notable then most schools." and on the basis it was directed by a famous director. Since then the article has remained an unreferenced stub and appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (films) criteria. EuroPride (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN. Not sure where the article is supposed to go. Apart from nowhere. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Szzuk. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep Full review at Digitallyobsessed, a review in Video Watchdog (to which I don't have access), reviews at genre-specific sites like Eccentric Cinema, with a decent synopsis at Allmovie-- enough to make this film "notable" enough for an article on its own. Add to this that the director is a major, currently-active cult director who, Google News search shows, gets wide coverage in reliable sources, and is bound to have full filmographies in cult film publications, and full reviews of his output. There is no good reason to delete it, and all indications are that, because of the highly notable director and cast, it will come back eventually even if it is deleted. Article is a fine stub as it is and has potential for significant expansion. Dekkappai (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying reliable sources exist is not the same as providing them. I don't doubt your good intentions. I do doubt that you can find a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already sourced the article and shown that it's been reviewed at least twice. A third review was already there. I'm saying there are bound to be more to which I, not being familiar with Fred Olen Ray's work, don't have access. For one, I used to read magazines like Cult Cinema and Psychotronic Video 15-20 years ago, and I'm sure they-- and other good cult cinema publications-- must have written on Ray's films as they come out, including this one. All this article needs, in order to be greatly expanded, is an editor with an interest in Ray's work, who has a collection of sources. He's a highly notable cult director, and each of his films deserves coverage. We're just waiting for an editor who takes an interest in his films to take up the job. In the meantime, the article as it stands now is a perfectly appropriate stub. Dekkappai (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those references pan out as this 1) 4.0/10 and one comment
reviewat imdb 2) a grade C and not worth watching review at digitally obsessed 3) a trivial mention on dogbytes and 4) a basically blank page on Hollywood upclose. Szzuk (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- You think a Wikipedia article only exists if reviews state the subject is of a high quality? Then you're simply wrong. (What? An article on Hitler is a vote for him as a good leader?) But beyond that, this is a blatant mis-characterization of the sourcing. "Review at imdb"? Huh? There is no such reference in the article. "trivial mention on dogbytes"-- that is a citation to a discussion in Video Watchdog on the film's release. There is also a citation to a review of the film in that publication. I don't have access to that magazine. Have you looked at it and determined it "trivial"? I checked the other cited reviews, and saw that this was the only one listed in that issue for that page. "a basically blank page on Hollywood upclose" It's not "basically blank" it has a cast / character listing, and the only thing it's used for in the article is to source that. It is in no way used as a claim of "notability" either in the article or on this discussion. I'll repeat the above: "Full review at Digitallyobsessed, a review in Video Watchdog (to which I don't have access), reviews at genre-specific sites like Eccentric Cinema, with a decent synopsis at Allmovie." The article is sourced, the film has at least three reviews. It's notable, it should stay. Also, I suspect that since Fred Olen Ray is a major cult director with a large fan-base there is bound to be further sourcing out there which someone knowledgeable of the director would be able to contribute. We seem to have some communication problem here, so I'll leave it at that. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In as many words you've said the subject is low quality. So this is a low quality porn film. It doesn't matter who the director is, the article isn't about him, if he directed a film watching paint dry would that deserve its own page on wp? For simplicity i'll strike through the word 'review' and add the word 'comment' to my previous remark. Sources demonstrate verifiablity, they don't demonstrate notability. These 'sources' simply demonstrate this film isn't notable. Szzuk (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "In as many words you've said the subject is low quality. So this is a low quality porn film." I have said no such thing. Huh? Of course we could have an article on a film about paint drying if it's sourced and reviewed-- Is there a WP policy against films about paint? Where the Hell are you getting this crap? OK, so it's not a communication problem. That was an attempt to "AGF" on my part. You are intentionally mis-representing sourcing and comments to bolster your wish to Delete the article. Glad we straightened that out. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said: "You think a Wikipedia article only exists if reviews state the subject is of a high quality?". That implies you think this film is low quality. I think a film about paint drying by this director would have its page deleted. I'm not misrepresenting anything. The word 'Delete' states my wish very clearly. Its a non notable porn film and you can add as many worthless sources as you like, that won't change. Szzuk (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "In as many words you've said the subject is low quality. So this is a low quality porn film." I have said no such thing. Huh? Of course we could have an article on a film about paint drying if it's sourced and reviewed-- Is there a WP policy against films about paint? Where the Hell are you getting this crap? OK, so it's not a communication problem. That was an attempt to "AGF" on my part. You are intentionally mis-representing sourcing and comments to bolster your wish to Delete the article. Glad we straightened that out. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In as many words you've said the subject is low quality. So this is a low quality porn film. It doesn't matter who the director is, the article isn't about him, if he directed a film watching paint dry would that deserve its own page on wp? For simplicity i'll strike through the word 'review' and add the word 'comment' to my previous remark. Sources demonstrate verifiablity, they don't demonstrate notability. These 'sources' simply demonstrate this film isn't notable. Szzuk (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You think a Wikipedia article only exists if reviews state the subject is of a high quality? Then you're simply wrong. (What? An article on Hitler is a vote for him as a good leader?) But beyond that, this is a blatant mis-characterization of the sourcing. "Review at imdb"? Huh? There is no such reference in the article. "trivial mention on dogbytes"-- that is a citation to a discussion in Video Watchdog on the film's release. There is also a citation to a review of the film in that publication. I don't have access to that magazine. Have you looked at it and determined it "trivial"? I checked the other cited reviews, and saw that this was the only one listed in that issue for that page. "a basically blank page on Hollywood upclose" It's not "basically blank" it has a cast / character listing, and the only thing it's used for in the article is to source that. It is in no way used as a claim of "notability" either in the article or on this discussion. I'll repeat the above: "Full review at Digitallyobsessed, a review in Video Watchdog (to which I don't have access), reviews at genre-specific sites like Eccentric Cinema, with a decent synopsis at Allmovie." The article is sourced, the film has at least three reviews. It's notable, it should stay. Also, I suspect that since Fred Olen Ray is a major cult director with a large fan-base there is bound to be further sourcing out there which someone knowledgeable of the director would be able to contribute. We seem to have some communication problem here, so I'll leave it at that. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those references pan out as this 1) 4.0/10 and one comment
- I have already sourced the article and shown that it's been reviewed at least twice. A third review was already there. I'm saying there are bound to be more to which I, not being familiar with Fred Olen Ray's work, don't have access. For one, I used to read magazines like Cult Cinema and Psychotronic Video 15-20 years ago, and I'm sure they-- and other good cult cinema publications-- must have written on Ray's films as they come out, including this one. All this article needs, in order to be greatly expanded, is an editor with an interest in Ray's work, who has a collection of sources. He's a highly notable cult director, and each of his films deserves coverage. We're just waiting for an editor who takes an interest in his films to take up the job. In the meantime, the article as it stands now is a perfectly appropriate stub. Dekkappai (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For anyone looking at the article and its sourcing-- rather than judging its subject from a biased moral or artistic perspective-- I've just added coverage of the http://www.eccentric-cinema.com/ review. Note that this site was selected as one of Entertainment Weeklys "Best of the Web" for 2007. That makes-- that we know of so far-- two full-size reviews in reliable sources, and possibly a third one with the Video Watchdog citation. Easily passes WP:GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ok, I concede, you won. But tell me how long have you been surfing for that dodgy porn review? I hope you can see the funny side of this! Lol. Szzuk (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi, Szzuk. I'm not sure what you mean-- the "eccentric-cinema" review? That was already at the article. The others I found without much effort, between my work on Japanese topics. If you mean the film-- It just caught my eye in the articles for deletion, Film project, and when I saw Ray's name, just figured it could be saved. I don't really think it's right to dismiss this kind of thing as "porn", like it's a cheap porn video. Ray is a cult-filmmaker, and he apparently dabbled in sexploitation with this one. That doesn't make it a disposable porn-vid. I look at it something like Ed Wood and his films. He's not "notable" because he was a great artist. His films aren't notable because they're great masterpieces of cinema. They're notable because they've been written about-- i.e., they've been "noted" in reliable sources... Dekkappai (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ...and if you think this one is bad, you know what Fred Olen Ray is most famous for, right? Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers Dekkappai (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ok, I concede, you won. But tell me how long have you been surfing for that dodgy porn review? I hope you can see the funny side of this! Lol. Szzuk (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I don't buy the argument myself, but I can't say I'm worried about it. But shouldn't the article be renamed to Teenage Cavegirl since that's the version all of the "references" refer to? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you don't buy the argument that if topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, then you need to take that up at WP:GNG, because this film has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the article survives this AfD, I would think the move would be appropriate too, as the current one refers to its cable TV title. It seems to be better-known by the original release title. Dekkappai (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just don't agree with you that even the best source, the review in www.eccentric-cinema.com, is truly reliable enough to establish notability, that's all. But it's not a big deal, people acting in good faith often disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ah. I'd thought digitallyobsessed was more "reliable" in this case, because I've seen it used in several articles. I had my doubts about eccentric-cinema, but the "Best of the Web" thing should confer some "reliability"... although these are both review sites, and it's hard to doubt their "reliability" as sources of reviews. It's whether their reviews are important enough to quote that is the issue. And, yes, we could agree to disagree there. Dekkappai (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just don't agree with you that even the best source, the review in www.eccentric-cinema.com, is truly reliable enough to establish notability, that's all. But it's not a big deal, people acting in good faith often disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you don't buy the argument that if topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, then you need to take that up at WP:GNG, because this film has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the article survives this AfD, I would think the move would be appropriate too, as the current one refers to its cable TV title. It seems to be better-known by the original release title. Dekkappai (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dekkappai's sources seem like significant coverage in the type of media that reviews this sort of thing. Dream Focus 11:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources now added to show notability. Lugnuts (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep While this film may not be "worthy of note" in the mainstream, it apparently has received the significant coverage in reliable sources that is needed to create a presumption of notability on Wikipedia, per WP:N. The review on Eccentric-cinema.com, for example, seems to contribute to that presumption significantly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements made since this AFD began, turning short stub into a decently encyclopdic start class article. Kudos to User:Dekkappai. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 11 April 2010 (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.
