Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity sex tape: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:51, 1 May 2008

Celebrity sex tape

This article is a massive coatrack which doesn't explain what a sex tape is but rather a list of celebrities that have been in one. Per [1] (repeated in WP:BLP, so don't bother pulling out Argumentum ad Jimboium), this article is the antithesis of the entire BLP policy - it's tabloiding of the highest degree, given how much some of these celebrities have litigated to get the tapes destroyed - and efforts to reduce it to an acceptable form have been ignored. I really want it to be an article, but my hand has been forced. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why don't you explain what a celebrity sex tape is and remove uncited claims? No one is trying to air the tapes, link to them, or divulge titillating tabloid details, just document that the such tapes exist. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By "efforts to reduce it to an acceptable form", what Sceptre means is he blanked the page four times ([2], [3], [4], [5]) in a period of thirty minutes without writing a single word on the article's talkpage, and with no edit summary beyond "BLP concerns". He was reverted by three separate editors (myself included), and probably should have been blocked for 3RR, if someone had been quicker on the draw with a 3RR warning template. He also submitted it for page protection to keep people from undoing his blanking, protection which was declined by an admin. Anyway, the page is well sourced beyond BLP-worry terrain. Ford MF (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks well sourced to me so BLP shouldn't be an issue, though I agree that maybe some explanation on the nature of celebrity sex tapes would be a welcome addition. The fact that this went from a page blank to a nomination for deletion is almost enough for me to say speedy keep it, in fact. Strong keep it it'll have to be. --mordicai. (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well cited, often highly publicized events. If there are particular concerns with a source, use the Talk page. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudging keep.

At first, I was going to vote for deletion. Isn't this article akin to, say, an article like "Harvard Alumni Status"? There certainly is such a thing as the "Harvard mystique," just as there really is such a thing as celebrity sex tapes. Both are, I suppose, fairly well-known phenomena and always dutifully reported by the media. Like the celebrity sex tape article, my hypothetical "Harvard Alumni Status" article could only be a generic definition of the term, followed by a list of personalities with the relevant characteristic. Finally, I was going to ask: Is there any doubt that an article about "Harvard Alumni Status" should garner unequivocal support for deletion?

I regret to inform you that there are in fact at least two articles on Harvard alumni status: List of Harvard University people and Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard University. In a perfect world, all of these articles, which exist more for the opportunity they give to users to flatter themselves as Wikipedia "contributors" than any actual encyclopedic demand, would be deleted. Nevertheless, it is by this time beyond doubt that these trivial, trivia-qua-list articles are here to stay. Reluctantly, I vote to keep. Pop Secret (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (edit conflict) You've got to be kidding me. Verifiability doesn't mean we check common-f******-sense at the door, nor is it an excuse for ignoring other principles of Wikipedia. We must consider what Wikipedia is not. We must consider that we're discussing living people. We must consider whether the available sources and the framing of the topic allow us to make a balanced and complete article. That's just a few examples of what is spelled out in policy. We should also use the sense given to us by nature. The growing abuse of verifiability as the end-all be-all of article inclusion and content considerations needs to stop. Vassyana (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *'''Keep'''.  Looks well sourced to me so [[WP:BLP|BLP]] shouldn't be an issue, though I agree that maybe some explanation on the nature of celebrity sex tapes would be a welcome addition.  The fact that this went from a page blank to a nomination for deletion is almost enough for me to say speedy keep it, in fact.  Strong keep it it'll have to be.  --[[User:Mordicai|mordicai.]] ([[User talk:Mordicai|talk]]) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. Well cited, often highly publicized events. If there are particular concerns with a source, use the Talk page. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Begruding keep.'''
+*'''Begrudging keep.'''
 : At first, I was going to vote for deletion. Isn't this article akin to, say, an article like "Harvard Alumni Status"? There certainly is such a thing as the "Harvard mystique," just as there really is such a thing as celebrity sex tapes. Both are, I suppose, fairly well-known phenomena and always dutifully reported by the media. Like the celebrity sex tape article, my hypothetical "Harvard Alumni Status" article could only be a generic definition of the term, followed by a list of personalities with the relevant characteristic. Finally, I was going to ask: Is there any doubt that an article about "Harvard Alumni Status" should garner unequivocal support for deletion?
 : I regret to inform you that there are in fact at least ''two'' articles on Harvard alumni status: [[List of Harvard University people]] and [[Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard University]]. In a perfect world, all of these articles, which exist more for the opportunity they give to users to flatter themselves as Wikipedia "contributors" than any actual encyclopedic demand, would be deleted. Nevertheless, it is by this time beyond doubt that these trivial, trivia-qua-list articles are here to stay. Reluctantly, I vote to keep. [[User:Pop Secret|Pop Secret]] ([[User talk:Pop Secret|talk]]) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)