Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Booty

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 of the debate was Delete. 3-2 in favour of deletion, but the delete voters make a better argument. The two votes to keep ('allow for expansion' and 'cleanup') do not assert why the article should be kept. The three delete votes do assert why it should not be.

Bangladesh Booty

this article is just nonsense, I quote, from the description, "Jazmin Jazmin belly dances for John West before stripping naked and spreading her lips, both sets, to welcome his massive cock into her body with wild abandon!" and NN IMO --Mwhorn 22:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the tone is certainly all wrong, but if there's a claim for notability in there somewhere (first Bangladeshi porno.. something-something), then I see nothing wrong with simply re-writing the article. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 22:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  WP:NN From all the sources I can find, the film was not made anywhere near Bangladesh, it is American. So... we have the first porno with "Bangladesh" in the title. I fail to see any notability whatsoever. --DaveG12345 22:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Apologies: The nonsense part of the article was mostly lifetd from another article on an adult film database. But the language has already been reformatted and the tone of writing reorganized. I hope the rewritten article is closer to wikipaedia standards. I must apologize for posting half-done articles. But, since I have a lousy net-connection which is always ready to snuff out, I have to keep saving my article in whatever state I can, repeatedly. And, the slowness of the line keeps the article away from developing fast. Looking forward to help from all of you. (Aditya Kabir 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete Neutral for now, sorry, but the article fails to assert verifiable notability. If any notability can be found (and verified through a reliable source), then I'll change my mind. --Coredesat 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Explanation: The name Bangladesh and featuring the first Bangladeshi pornstar in the female lead is already an event notable enough. The female lead of the film is the first ever Bangladeshi women to willingly perform sexual acts in front of camera with commercial purposes. The exotic Bangaldesh connection has already earned success enough to encourage a sequel, and much debate among Bangladeshis at home and abroad. There is every possibility that it will go into a cult status fast. (Aditya Kabir 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment But this was also her sixtieth porn film - so why is it notable? The title? --DaveG12345 22:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refutation: This was somewhere between her third and tenth film, her sixtieth film came out early this year. I am still trying to determine the exact order of her films. But, since the DVD distributors all quote different dates according totheir own release, it is difficult. (202.74.244.12 23:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment I was quoting this blog entry which appears to involve an interview with the star, but I note now it is dated December 2005, so apologies - plenty of time to rattle off fifty or so films between those dates.
    • I do suspect this film does have notability, and have been commenting to try and learn exactly what that notability is, and how it can be verified as such, but I cannot vote to keep until something that passes
      WP:V comes to light. I will keep an eye on this. --DaveG12345 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep Looks like it just needs time to develop. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Changed vote to neutral, pending verification of notability. I don't think a blog post quite makes it. --Coredesat 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What kind of verification would be appropriate? For the authenticity of the pioneering nature of the film I can post DVD distributors' lists. For the debate that is circulating in Bangladesh I can quote Bangaldesh newspapers. And, for the socia-cultural realities of Bangladesh I can indicate research references. But, then I'd need help to structurally intigrate all that into one coherent article. (Aditya Kabir 00:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment
    WP:BB! --DaveG12345 00:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep and tag for cleanup - see above. --DaveG12345 00:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Needs reliable secondary sources that confirm the groundbreaking claims. Combined with the (still) unencyclopedic writing style and I think this goes below my threshold, for now. snug 00:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Porncruft is possibly the least policed of crufts Bwithh 18:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreement: Yes, I do agree with you that proncruft is the least policed, and I agree with you that all funcraft should be in different wiki (may be with links to wikipaedia). But, I don't find that bias to be reason enough for a deletion, since porncruft still is very much a part of wikipaedia. In fact, there is a whole portal dedicated to porn here. (Aditya Kabir 14:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

To Booty or not to Booty

• Dissapointment: I really hoped for better quality help from wikipaedians discussing a deletion. For one, porn remains a pseudo underground industry in most places the world, and is highly hush-hush in Bangladesh. Thus, industry promotionals has to do as a source of information, which should not be unacceptable in the light of major studio releases. Much information available on those films are from promotionals as well. On the other hand a lengthy socio-cultural analysis incoprporated right away may not be a good idea for a tiny entry on a porn film. Better directions, please, I'm pretty new here. (Aditya Kabir 02:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• More dissapointment: As for my "groundbreaking" claims, all that is claimed are - (1) this is the first officially recognized (as opposed to candidly shot sexual acts of unaware and non-consenting female Bangladeshis circulating in the underground) porn movie with a Bangladeshi as the female lead (as opposed to taking part in a minor role in a scene depicting an orgy), and (2) this means a lot to the Bangladeshi porn-lovers and liberal Bangladeshi youth in general, since they are stuck under a gloss of mythical appropriate behavior facing realities that present more opportunities than obstacles. (Aditya Kabir 02:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • • Some links: Here are some links for all to check (unfortunately "spam filter" has blocked one link to be posted):

http://www.risquevideo.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/rv.showtitle/priceid=14094/index.cfm

http://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/forum/topic.dlt/topic_id=42583/forum_id=5/cat_id=1/42583.htm

http://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/forum/topic.dlt/topic_id=53021/forum_id=10/cat_id=1/53021.htm

I'll be posting more. And, for the entry, you'll have to give a couple of days time to get the act together. Or, maybe one of the other wikipaedians can pitch in his/her efforts.(Aditya Kabir 02:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• • • Comment I tried to offer some help and advice above, sorry if it wasn't enough. Unfortunately, porn is not my specialist subject (honestly), so I can't be a great practical help. I don't think you should worry about producing an epic article that covers all bases - right now, you just need to cover some bases. At the moment, the article makes claims that cannot be verified, and that's not good news for the fate of the article.
    • If you found reliable sources to back up the two "claims" you make above, I personally think that would go a long way to establishing some kind of
      WP:NN for his particular film. Other users, of course, may well disagree. But if you think you have found them, I encourage you to put them in the article, and then tell us here to go have a look. Unfortunately, the links above may well provide circumstantial evidence, but they are not reliable sources in WP terms. --DaveG12345 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Thanks: Thanks Dave. I know I have a long way to go on the way of writing perfect encyclopaedic entries. But, not writing at all may not be good way to achieve that. All the help is appreciated, and significantly useful as well. The huge articles on the way of wikipaedia with all the little details included are still painful labyrinths to me. I wish someone explained them in simpler terms. (Aditya Kabir 05:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Question: As far as I understood, the original deletion propostion was made on the ground that this film isn't notable enough to feature as an article. But, since that proposal was made I have gone through almost all of the articles on wikipaedia. Now my wondering questions are - What really makes a porn film notable, and by whose standards? Are those standards the same for Bangaldesh and the US? Does the same standards apply to Christina Aguilera albums or 1970s TV comedy? (Aditya Kabir 05:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Replied at your user page - I think it's best to keep discussion of this article off here now unless directly related to AfD. --DaveG12345 07:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 begins here

• Announcement: I have made enormous changes to the article - Bangladesh Booty, and I hope the notability issues have been addressed at length (thanks to snug and DaveG12345 I have found some good directions on that), though it still needs some development in articulation. I am working on the verifiability part now (I got some directions on that as well, thanks to you guys). Keep me posted for directions, an I wish some of you will get your hands dirty in tidying up the article as well. (202.74.244.12 12:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Apologies: Not having a better familiarity with wikipaedia I may have reacted too quick to use of words like "groundbreaking", "claims" and more. They are, in fact, generally words too strong to be used in most discussions. But, as I have found, not so here. I have just gone through
  pornstar entry criterions and found that every comment on this page makes eminent sense. Therefore I apologize deeply. (Aditya Kabir 12:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply
  ]
• Still Delete Although some steps have been made in the right direction, it still seems to me that the main claims... first Bangladeshi etc, are not the focus of the secondary sources. The sources quoted focus on the status of women (good reference, but not applicable to the main claim), and the pornos made of unwitting women. Lots of spelling errors remain. snug 15:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Acceptance: Well, I guess, that settles the "notability" issue, which was the original cause for the AfD proposition. Now I have a newer issues to deal with - verification - and that too of just one of the "claims".
  WP:NPOV covered, and I guess - a lot of improvement. (Aditya Kabir 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply
  ]
  • Question: Though I am not as wikipaedia savvy as snug is, I wonder if spelling errors (I rather would call them typing errors) can be a ground for deletion. What I have seen here tells me these errors rather call for a cleanup. Is that not the case? (Aditya Kabir 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Thanks: I already had a much help in cleaning up the article to amke it free of spelling errors. Can someone help me to quote a source of reference that seconds the claim that Bangladesh Booty is the first leading role for the first Bangladeshi pornstar? Or does that imply two different claims on two related but different firsts? (Aditya Kabir 18:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Eureka: I have found a source beyond blogs and DVD covers, and IT IS "reputable" - a major national daily of Bangladesh - Jai Jai Din - though it is a tiny mention and not uploaded in the web edition. Should I quote it? (Aditya Kabir 13:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Of course. : ) You might want to see
    Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style for help. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:11, 26 June 2006 (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.