Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bend Over Boyfriend (2nd nomination)

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 as the outcome looks obviously, so close it now.--JForget 23:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bend Over Boyfriend

Bend Over Boyfriend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedy deletion overturned at Deletion Review. No opinion on the merit. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There is nothing more here than the barest assertion of notability. I don't see anything in the article or the DRV meeting WP:N or WP:NOTFILM. Eluchil404 06:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Nuke it again... and again... and again... and again... and again... ad nauseum until its finally gone  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments like this are just terrible and frankly, irresponsible... especially if you aren't going to check back or participate in the discussion. --W.marsh 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Carol Queen. If this woman was the main force behind the movie, maybe it would be better suited to send this two-three line stub to an article that needs to be added with content. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• No claim or establishment of notability. Delete. Best case one can merge the very minimal content to Carol Queen, but a full keep is right out. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

*Delete - Perhaps deserves a mention in Carol Queen, but that's all.--Danaman5 07:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing to Keep after viewing the changes made to the article.--Danaman5 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Although "pegging" is notable, these tapes about it are not. This is so frustrating though, that no matter how much I think about it, I simply can't come up with a humourous, sexually orientated punchline for this AfD. I think Alkivar's is by far the funniest so far... Darn... Spawn Man 07:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have added five sources, which by itself makes this meet WP:N. There are also many more sources [1], just the fact that some sex ed video has gotten so much coverage should be evidence of notability. At any rate, there are now some claims of notability and importance in the article... this video apparently had a lot to do with popularizing "pegging" (and was apparently an early term for the practice). So please, step back from your deletionism people... some of the above comments are pretty sad. Is content that scary? It's not like the sources weren't mentioned in the DRV. --W.marsh 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, apparently this AFD was mentioned in the admin chatroom last night... that explains why so many people showed up at the same time. Hmmmmm... --W.marsh 13:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. One of the most notable and influential of sex-ed videos. The Nation? The Village Voice? Properly sourced and verifiable. bikeable (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed how much of the article, including all the sources, was due to a single improvement by W.marsh. Nice work! bikeable (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep now that W. Marsh has done a WP:HEY, adding the sources. Meets WP:N hands down. Not my favorite subject, but no buts about it, not a cra- -- no, I won't say it. Noroton 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Noroton. Rob T Firefly 15:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per W.marsh's improvements. Being a sex tape (or, rather, a series of sex tapes) does not make the topic inherently non-notable (if such a thing exists at all). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now that it's been substantially improved, this is a no-brainer. Pascal.Tesson 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Barely meets WP:N with the added refs by W. Marsh. It does seem spammy in that it promotes films made by one source, and does not place them in historical context by mentioning Raquel Welch with a strap-on bending a guy over in the Hollywood major (failure)motion picture (1970) Myra Breckinridge (film) where she says ""I won't kill you, I'll just educate you. You and the rest of America!" (p 9 of plot summary) [2]. Edison 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per User:W.marsh's sources, seems to satisfy WP:N now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - one of the more well known and critically acclaimed porn series. Georgewilliamherbert 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- new editsand references fix above problems, as noted above.JJJ999 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and I commend W marsh for his edits to the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously notable (and the source of sufficient cultural references by now that it makes searching for WP:RS a bit harder), and much improved thanks to W.marsh. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — clearly meets notability guidelines after the extensive cleanup and addition of sources. --Haemo 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - In addition to the newsprint material, there seems to be a significant amount of material on the topic that can be found in books. With so much information, FA status doesn't seem out of the question. -- Jreferee t/c 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Jreferee t/c 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and consider WP:SNOW in light of the, shall we say, quality, of the delete arguments. Clearly notable based on sources. Otto4711 19:35, 27 September 2007 (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.