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. Removal of unsourced material is an editorial decision and can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex[edit]

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Poorly sourced list with potentially libelous content and original research. Unencyclopedic. I removed some of the worst content here, but the entire article needs to go. Oden 13:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Needs more sources. Just because something is not listed on Wikipedia does not mean it is not truly notable. The article could use some polishing but is overall fine and should not be deleted. 71.225.125.176 12:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Some is unsourced, however there is no reason to remove this from Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghettodude (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• It would need to go if nothing on the subject can be sourced at all. But it can. The fact that Shortbus, 9 Songs, Baise-Moi, and Intimacy all contain unsimulated sex (the latter with named actors), can be sourced to places such as this article in The Guardian and this article in The Times, for example. Your problem with this article is verifiability. Feel free to wield the merciless sword of verifiability on the article, removing all unsourced content, and refusing to let it return without a proper source being cited. But deletion is not the answer to this article's problems. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Hmmmmm.... Regardless of Uncle G's suggestion (and I would ADD to it that the redlinked movies be removed as well; if a movie is not notable enough for Wikipedia as a whole, then it is not notable enough in part either), the question remains whether such a list is encyclopedic. I sometimes get the impression that editors that love pop culture have run out of articles to write and have now moved on to creating IMHO arbitrary lists to categorise information in a myriad of ways. So, while the subject of "unsimulated sex in film" is possibly notable, a list of all verifiable and notable movies that have such scenes goes to a level of detail beyond which an encyclopedia (even a non-paper one) should not cover. There are some things that just don't belong in an encyclopedia, which is why we direct readers to the sources and external links for further reading. Zunaid©® 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just because a film is redlinked doesn't mean it isn't notable enought for an article. It just means no one has gotten around to writing an article about it yet. 23skidoo 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I'm with Zunaid; even if everything was cited and redlinks were removed, etc., etc., this would still be unencyclopedic listcruft. As Zunaid said, it is probable that the concept of (unsimulated) sex in film is notable, but a mere mention of films that contain sex is not. -- Kicking222 14:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Reluctant delete as this article will clearly continue to be victimized by Wikipedia's elitist bias against such topics. And I'm voting as a frequent contributor to said article. 23skidoo 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ganfon 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per Uncle G. Since there have been only a small handful of non-porn films in this category, I don't think it's even close to listcruft. It seems to me more like documentation of a shift in cultural and industry norms. Maybe in twenty years it will have grown to a nonmanagable size, but we can worry about that then. Certainly needs to be sourced and dramatically cropped, however -- I would argue that it should stick to its title ("mainstream" and "films") and lose all the cable tv / internet stuff. bikeable (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G. Otto4711 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - As pointed out by Uncle G., much of the information in this article can and does meet WP:V. This is definitely an article that needs to be monitored for possible instances of libel, but it is nonetheless encyclopedic: it presents verifiable and noteworthy information that in many cases has directly affected the cultural or social impact of the flims in question. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per all above of course. Jcuk 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete In addition to the other delete comments above, the 'mainstream' seems like an arbitary criterion to me. I followed the mainstream cinema link at the top of the list to shed further light, where my thoughts were confirmed by the text "the boundary is vague". CiaranG 20:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep....but 1) immediately remove everything that isn't sourced as potentially libellous. 2) Since that will not leave much, why oh why is this a LIST. Rename to Mainstream films with unsimulated sex and allow a list of whatever is verifiable. --Doc^g 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Per Uncle G and as article with multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. There are a few verifiable examples of "mainstream" films with unsimulated sex acts, sure. Once you purge this article of the speculation, original research and unverifiable claims there is content left, yes, but not enough to warrant a "list article". NeoFreak 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not trying to be dense (it comes natural!), but I don't see how this is a reason for deletion. In fact, just the opposite: because unsimulated sex in a mainstream movies is a rare thing, it is worth having a list of those rarities. Surely a List of mainstream movies with simulated sex would be listcruft, but this is a list of exceptions to a rule that has very few exceptions. In this way, it's like having a list of left-handed baseball players -- that is, they are all important exceptions. Just my tuppence. bikeable (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that's a very fair point. I think an article about this topic could be made if done right and the sources where there for the reason you stated. This article is not about the subject, it's just a listing of movies in which it occurs, not encyclopedic to begin with and then it's losses the rest of it's reason for existence (in my mind) when only one or two of those movies scenes can be verified by reliable sources. NeoFreak 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. All criticisms seem to originate from personal biases. The article just needs a brief paragraph explaining how/why unsimulated sex and/or explicit sex found its way into mainstream cinema.
• Delete these not mainstream movies. the whole article is POV. --MarsRover 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: I can see where the "keepers" are coming from in the responses above, and would not object to this list being partly merged back into an "unsimulated sex in film" article as examples of the concept. However I still feel that having a long list of every single film that fits the criteria goes beyond an encyclopedic level of detail. Zunaid©® 06:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic. The list is entertaining, I'll grant you, but not a topic for an encyclopedia article. Maybe there should be a separate "Listopedia" or something to capture this list-making impulse. But really, if you grant this for Wikipedia, what's next? "List of films in which simulated fellatio occurs"? "List of non-mainstream films with scenes of dogs drinking water"? (Not to mention the problem of adjudicating what counts as "mainstream.") BTfromLA 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. ...and clean up. Not particularly a good article, but that is an of itself isn't enough to delete. From my reading of the article, it's hardly libelous since qualifiers are given whenever there is a controversy. Zotdragon 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Mild keep and remove or tag unreferenced items There is some possible use here for someone researching either censorship or sex in movies and related topics by providing specific films the reader can reference as citable examples. So I'd go with keeping the article, but removing or tagging for citation unreferenced information. Dugwiki 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. Addhoc 12:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but delete all unsourced material per Uncle G. VegaDark 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and add more references. (Ibaranoff24 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
• Delete These are hardly "mainstream" films. Most are underground or foreign films.Fistful of Questions 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but clean up - remove the actual 'porn' films, and keep those that are truly mainstream, which could be loosely defined as those that have been allowed to play in the cinema. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.76.156.103 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Delete If this were a proper article I might feel otherwise, but we have more than enough of these silly pop culture lists already. We certainly don't need a big list of supposedly mainstream films that supposedly show people really doin' it. If the vote does go to "Keep", I suggest a LOT of paring down using more citations and a much stricter definition of "mainstream film". CKarnstein 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I don't see any compelling reason to remove the article. Clean up any libelous content, sure, though I saw nothing that was libelous -- i.e., that demonstrated a malicious intent. Seems like a fairly honest and straightforward list. Could someone point out content that they though was libelous? Otherwise, the only basis for objection is the sexual content, and really, if you're going to let the prudes run the show, might as well give up and do a dead trees edition with all objectionable content removed, because it won't be the Wikipedia and it will not be a democratically-created product.

Pat Powers 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.