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 delete. This discussion meets the level of consensus necessary for deletion. The main concern raised by the nominator and subsequent voters is that the article fails basic content policies such as WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. Indeed, the title alone falls short of meeting neutrality requirements, as certain terms like "mainstream" are subjective and often rely on first-hand research to determine their meaning. The article itself is poorly sourced, and requires immediate cleanup. That said, reading through the AfD debate, I realized that although the keep "votes" far outnumber the deletes, many of them don't in any way address the main issue, but instead base their reasoning on the fact that they believe the topic to be notable. Notability was never questioned by the nominator, so it's hard to give these opinions much weight. Although it is a common focus of debate at deletion discussions, notability does not always dictate an article's fate, and there are sometimes articles addressing notable topics which are simply not suitable to be included within Wikipedia. In short, I believe the arguments for removing this article easily outweigh those in favor of retaining it, and so I conclude that consensus endorses deletion. I find it likely that this closure will be contested, so please consider initiating a discussion on my talk page before heading to DRV. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[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)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list depends on a lot of conjecture and original research. However the larger problem is serious BLP problems, since it would be a crime to hire people to have sex^{[verification needed]} (in most places) so the producers, directors, and others are being accused of that -- in most cases without good sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The lead could probably be improved, but the listed films all seem to have good 3rd party sources for the notable-seeming, and noted in sources, fact that they include non-simulated sex (which is unusual in non-porn films). The list may not be complete, but the inclusion criteria is clear enough and requires neutral and reliable sources. LotLE×talk 09:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, looking through the recent edit history of the article, the lead was specifically made worse by an editor intent here on deletion of the article. So even that stylistic flaw seems to be a slightly WP:POINTy way to urge deletion. LotLE×talk 18:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There shouldn't be any OR or BLP problems if the list is kept well-sourced. Epbr123 (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I suspect topic matter such as this has been treated in cinematic studies, especially concerning censorship, sexuality etc. As long as the article is policed to confirm sourced material, should be okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly it has been treated in cinematic studies, and if true might suggest we could have an article on that (although that wouldn't answer why we need a list). However, your "I suspect" is problematic. If such studies exist, we should consider that - but until someone points us to them, then your assertion, however reasonable, does not overcome the original research objection. If studies are later found, then DRV may well overturn this on grounds of new evidence, until then, lets stick with what we know.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scott, have you ever done any research at a postgrad level? Do you have any familiarity with film studies? Censorship and sex have been much discussed. If I were more interested I would have done some homework but I find the subject quite boring really, nevermind, if I get a chance I will...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sex an censorship have been the subject of research is obvious, and irrelevant. The question is, has "unsimulated sex and censorship", which is what you are asserting? "I know it is true" is never that strong an argument here. All I'm saying is that a source for that would be nice. (But, even if there was a source - would it justify a list as opposed to a general article on the subject.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not quite irrelevant. What I mean is that the topic is so voluminous, that even if the discussion of unsimulated sex in mainstream cinema makes up but a tiny fragment of it, it will be more than enough to satisfy notability. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This is an embarrassment. Wikipedia is not a porn site. Is that a good enough reason? In WIkipedia, we have rules, like WP:BLP. It's just totally not a sensible place to be trying to maintain such a list. "I watched the film, and saw real sex" is NEVER going to be an admissable reason for including the film. And if the film really, obviously does include unsimulated sex, what does that mean? This list is doomed to be wrong, anyway! I have no qualms about porn as such; it's fine, this is the 21st century. It's just not encyclopaedia material. Please take this list elsewhere. Further, all the other "delete" reasons are very valid appeals to real Wikipedia policies (second Steve Dufour, The Four Deuces). Please respect the polices. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a porn site? That is odd. The many sex articles always rate high in the list of the most viewed articles. No policy has been violated, no reason to delete. Dream Focus 10:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that Wikipedia does have a Pornography portal. Yet, this is still not a "porn" site as it does not distribute pornographic material. Marcus1979 (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, no doubt BLP issues could be avoided by proper sourcing and maintenance, however they won't be. I've recently had to remove half the article because it was a clear violation, and that is despite the fact that the concerns were previously brought to the community's notice via the earlier nomination. This type of article simply invites original research and dubious sources and will always do so. Given the potential for libels, I'd say it is simply not a subject that can responsibly be handled in a wiki format. Now, someone is going to say that my argument means we'd have to delete the entire encyclopedia because everything is open to BLP violations. That reductio ad absurdum does not hold up, because due to their subject matter and low-interest/l;ow-watching certain articles are more prone to these problems than others, and the deletion of certain articles would be more damaging than others, besides which my objections here are not theoretical but established by the history of this particular article. A risk/benefit analysis here leads to a delete conclusion. We keep bad articles because they've got the potential to become good ones - but the nature and notability of this subject means it has only the potential to be a prolonged and libellous sore.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott m'boy, there's a dandy little thing called semiprotection, which I think would be a pretty basic and highly prudent step in this case. And get off the fence and make a comment rather than obfuscate with !voting. nevermind, I see that you have at the (obscure) end of the post. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Longterm semi-protection of problematic low-interest subjects is not currently policy. But anyway, the crap that was in the article was put in by confirmed accounts, so semi-protection is irrelevant. --Scott Mac (Doc) 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • aaaa-and if it happens again, named accounts can be reasoned with (and if need be sanctioned) for problematic edits. You are perfectly free to raise discussion with those who added material before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR and sourcing issues. (I don't think BLP is a huge problem in this particular one, or should be if written correctly.) Orderinchaos 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am at a loss as to how this is original research if there are sources that confirm that the unsimulated sex happened. Nor do I agree that there are BLP concerns in the presence of sources, which includes the primary source of the film itself (and the hatchet that's been taken to this list recently by an overzealous editor is a tremendous error in judgment on his part, but that's an issue for the talk page). There is no support for the claim that inclusion on this list constitutes an accusation of illegal activity against these films' creative personnel. The inclusion of this list does not imply that Wikipedia is a "porn site" so no, that is far from a good enough reason unless the editor believes that all articles related to sexually explicit material, pornographic actors and sex workers should be deleted. Searching for sourcing is a little more diffiult with this subject matter but a simple search for "unsimulated sex mainstream films" turns up several dozen Google News results some Google Books results and some Google Scholar results. At least some of these speak to the phenomenon of including real sex in mainstream films (many to do with the film Shortbus it appears) and if there is a question regarding an individual film then independent sourcing for the specific film can be sought (or the film can, you know, be watched since primary sourcing is considered reliable for describing what it happening in a film). Wikipedia is not censored. Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason why a sourced list should not exist. I see a lot of WP:DONTLIKEIT and a vague deletion rationale "it would be a crime to hire people to have sex" completely unsourced, and with the weasel qualifier "(in most places)". Tell me, in which countries is it a crime to hire actors to have sex?, how can they ever make porn movies? Power.corrupts (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference between putting an ad on Craig's List saying "I will pay you to have sex with me." and going to a theatrical agent and saying "I would like to hire two actors to have sex with each other so I can film it." Besides even if it were legal there would be tremendous potential problems with civil liability, workers' rights, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, apparently legislators, lawyers and judges see a difference. You are aware that hardcore porn films actually do exist, in many cases made legally, aren't you?! I'm sure this is a fascinating insight into your psychology or ethical beliefs, Steve Dufour, but it seems to be unrelated to this AfD. LotLE×talk 20:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, a legislator, or even a judge. I was only discussing this article, not any other issues. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, whether it is legal or not is beside the point. The point is that if we were to get this wrong, and claim that film foo had a scene of unsimulated sex and we were to get that wrong, we could be libelling living people. The actors and directors in any film are readily identifiable (even if not named in the list), and a claim that they were involved in this, if in fact they were not, could clearly be damaging or distressing. That's the BLP issue. Of course, that can be addressed by insisting on concrete sourcing. However, we've already seen this article collect a whole heap of unsourced (hence BLP violating) entries. The question then becomes, whether the article is worth high risk of violations, and whether credible sources/research really exists.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are arguing that we should not have biographies on Wikipedia, because... who knows, someone might put something libelous in one?! Obviously, WP:BLP applies to this article, just like it does to every other article on WP. LotLE×talk 20:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. Please see my earlier comment above where I said that someone would argue just as you have, and I gave reason why deleting this did not mean deleting all BLPs. Please see above.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Scholars interested in erotica cinema and films portraying sexuality need access to a reliable, updated list of mainstream films with unsimulated sex, and what better place to have it than here at Wikipedia? I've lost count of the many times I've been asked about this topic and referred people to this list, but it's certainly very helpful, so it would be a crime to remove it. Instead, let's just keep making it better! --Minutae (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sex on film is not illegal as nom suggests - have you heard of pornography? It would be good to have more a neutral sourcing but that's mostly been done already. Also the deleted content should be moved to the talkpage until sourcing is presented. In many cases that is quite a BLP stretch but at least work with other editors who have done a tremendous job on the list. -- Banjeboi 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article has been a long-standing debacle; before Scott Mac removed half the article for lacking references, I removed a similar amount (perhaps more) as unreferenced claims concerning living persons (BLP violations). This article was misconceived from the beginning -- for most of its existence the inclusion criterion wasn't reliable sourcing, but original research by editors who (supposedly) watched the scenes in question and gave their own opinions about what was real and what wasn't. Better to scrap this misbegotten list entirely, create a category if appropriate, and start work on an actual article on the subject with historical perspective and context rather than a catch-as-catch-can list. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent massive deletion of valuable, carefully assembled content has not only been carried out in the most disrespectful manner, but frankly appears to be an act of vandalism. Proper editing and team-work is called for, not mindless, self-righteous butchery. --Minutae (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "butchery" you speak of was a mine, and was a standard application of the WP:BLP policy. Unreferenced material which may adversely affect living people is removed immediately and can be replaced if sourced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Proper editing", as defined by WP:BLP, calls for removing unsourced claims with the potential to harm the reputations of living persons "immediately and without waiting for discussion." The sourcing problems with this article were identified in the original AFD, and there was probably a consensus then, once one sorts through the comments, for summary removal of all the unsourced claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of the material that has been removed belonged on that list and most was not in violation of any rules or if so could easily have been fixed by a few minutes of intelligent editing rather than just self-righteously knocking stuff over. Especially laughable is the removal of the Danish films, considering that in most of these the sex acts are performed by professional, well-known porn models, unlikely to be "harmed" by the revelation that they also had sex in a mainstream film. It seems that the people who performed this editing hack job either haven't got any knowledge of the subject of the list or just don't give a damn. --Minutae (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, and no reason such a list can't be sourced. Seems to be U.S.-centric at the moment, but no reason it can't be expanded, improved and reliably sourced if someone puts in the work. As a side-note, the "I saw it" school of sourcing which has been appropriately-- if painfully-- removed here, is still actively promoted at WP:FILMPLOT for film article synopses. I hope some Crusader puts an end to that anomaly some day... Dekkappai (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Hey... it dawns on me that I saw a book once long ago, "They Did It" or something like that, which dealt with the subject of this list. I'll post it to the article if I can blow the cobwebs off my memory and books and turn something up. Dekkappai (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This article, aside from the notability of the subject and its (the subject's) possible significance when viewed within the context of the history of cinema, is related to and may have a bearing on other Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to Nudity in film, Sex in film, and Porno Chic. While some elements of the article may be in need of better sourcing, and indeed of a good style guide, that is an argument for better and more consistent editing practices, not for deletion. A willingness on the part of the editors to collaborate and cooperate and a little bit of diligence and initiative are all that is really needed. Well, we also need to have an end to the sort of vandalism which the article has suffered from recently. While the removal of information which may be in violation of WP:BLP is understandable, the removal of material which an editor considers to be inadequately sourced, or even unsourced, is another thing. It has been standard practice on Wikipedia for articles (or information within an article) which require citations and references to be tagged accordingly, not simply deleted. --Lecher Lingam (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the subject is notable, though I am not the least satisfied with the quality of the sourcing, much of which is some variant of "alleged". The BLP policy would apply to all or almost all the individuals here. Butthat the article is difficult to do correctly is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought BLP always applied to all people. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not John Holmes, who was mentioned in an earlier version of the article. All DGG's saying in that regard, I think, is that some of the individuals involved are no longer living. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. It only applies to people who are still alive. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article as I see it now, is well sourced, and seems like a legitimate topic. Dream Focus 10:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments above. --Eightofnine (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the keep arguments above don't address the fundamental problem with this article: it lacks a clear, objective definition of 'mainstream'. It is unarguable that there have been many films containing unsimulated sex; the problem with this list is that it attempts to only include 'mainstream' films, which is inherently almost impossible to define. I understand that commercial pornographic films are meant to be excluded, but on what grounds are films included? What makes these films 'mainstream'? If a clear set of criteria cannot be given, then this list is ultimately WP:OR/WP:POV and should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an issue of clean-up and focus. There's no doubt the subject is notable and has been researched and written about. What remains is fixing the overall list and if needed separating out what should be included or not. Ergo the list itself is not the issue, just the scope. -- Banjeboi 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You miss the point. "Mainstream" is a subjective and POV term. There is no way it can be otherwise. Sure, you can try to devise a set of criterion to define it, but all that would be is "what a bunch of wikipedians define as mainstream" that's still POV. If I put a film on it I think is mainstream, or remove one I don't, you won't have any reliable source by which to refute my assertion. This is problem with subjective lists.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt it. All we need is a filmlore source which defines it (which I have just the tiniest sneaking hunch exist), we don't define it ourselves...that'd be OR. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, again your hunches as evidence? Problem is that would be "mainstream according to x". I have a "hunch" there might be other places with different definitions. "Mainstream" is inherently subjective.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That remains an editing issue not a deletion one. Can this list like so many others be improved to define the parameters of what's included similar to how every notability guideline has evolved? Yes. -- Banjeboi 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wrong. "Inherently POV" means there is no way to agree content that isn't POV. We avoid POV by reliable sources which point to facts, but what is "mainstream" is an opinion not a fact. We cannot do this by notability guidelines because you do not make a subjective judgement into a fact by achieving a consensus of the unqualified. The opinions of wikipedians as to what constitutes mainstream are wholly irrelevant - wikipedians are not qualified to substitute their judgement for reliable sources.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • We may have to agree to disagree here. If mainstream is a sticking point then try to work with the others to find a more NPOV title. We do this all the time to appease these exact issues. Again that is an editing issue, a regular common one we do all the time. A bad title is not a good deletion reason. -- Banjeboi 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Mainstream" is not the reason I supported deletion (see my first post). It merely came up in discussion. But I do not believe an NPOV title could be found - that's a minor, although sufficient reason for deletion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Note that "sex" if also undefined. According to President Clinton (attempted humor) many of the things mentioned in the article are not really sex. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename: If the meaning of "mainstream" is relative, why not change it to "non-porn films", i.e. Rated R and lower? Rating scales are official in most countries. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an improvement. It still doesn't do anything for my reason for nominating, which was possible legal and other problems for the producers of the films. If poorly sourced this would be against WP:BLP, as I said. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors here (the nominator and the editor who WP:POINTily deleted most of the article content) continue to repeat the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument over and over. The BLP argument was silly, and the "must-delete-if-conceivable-ambiguity" argument is even sillier. By the argument of Steve Dufour just above, we must also delete, say Lady Gaga and Tony Blair on the grounds that "if poorly sourced they could violate WP:BLP". That is a silly and absurd idea, which applies no more to this topic than to biographies as such. The solution to poor sourcing is good sourcing not article deletion... which isn't to say this article actually is poorly sourced, to the contrary it is rather carefully cited. LotLE×talk 19:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once expressed any view on whether I like this article or not, not do I base my call for deletion on the ambiguity. As for having to delete all BLPs if we deleted this, I refuted that type of predictable nonsense argument above. As for POINTy - how on earth is it disruptive to remove unreferenced material pertaining to living people? That's core policy, and just because you don't like it does not change that. I accept this article will probably end up staying, but really the rubbish being spouted in its defence, by people who are not even reading the responses, beggars belief.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable topic, covered in reliable sources. Meets WP:V and WP:A. It doesn't look like WP:BLP is an issue, given the sufficient sourcing. Note that WP:IDL is not a valid reason for deletion. Possibly rename, per above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I didn't like the article. The person who removed material did so because of BLP policy, whose page has a whole section entitled: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't, but others have above. And I agree that this article must be policed for BLP violations, but that's not a reason for deletion either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, one other did - and even he gave other reasons too. Yet the keepers have constantly used a spurious reference to "I don't like it" as a reason to keep it. It smacks of "keep, because I like porn".--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The normalisation or mainstream treatment of explicit sex is an important cultural barometer. The article is not salacious in any way. Some comment on cultural implications would deepen the article. As to what constitutes 'mainstream', the showing of Antichrist at Cannes is a good indicator (I don't know the festival treatment of other listed films). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidetal (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is hardly an unnotable one, as mainstream media such as the BBC[1] and Channel 4[2] discuss it. Finding the topic to be sordid is no reason for deletion, and neither is the need to source it properly. Fences&Windows 22:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand my argument, the suggestion that the article would place producers, directors or actors at risk since hiring people to have sex is illegal is just plain wrong. These are mainstream releases that have received mainstream press coverage; we're hardly lifting the lid on some underground movement here. That argument might apply to "List of snuff movies", but it doesn't apply here. It was quite correct that unsourced material that referred to living people needed to be removed, but now that is done and each entry is sourced that is no argument for deletion. The argument of original research doesn't hold as the entries are all sourced now. I agree that all the entries need sources, adding a movie because you noticed an erection on a screen the character was watching isn't OK. Fences&Windows 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Most movies are cited with a reference, and the subject is very relevant to today's culture. There is no reason to remove that article.Marcus1979 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the list is easily defined, and the amount of studio or indie film with actual sex is very small and the fact that The Idiots, 9 Songs or Shortbus did not get an R18 (which is reserved for actual porn) in the UK is talked about on the BBFC wikipedia page and the R18 page. This list actually missed off Destricted. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2009 (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.