SarekOfVulcan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 6:32 pm
Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 10:23 pm
One comment stands out, though:
Oh Good God Keep Please That plot description is the hardest I've ever laughed at a Wikipedia article, and Yank's reflist appears to satisfy the GNG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
An admin voting to keep an article about a generic porn movie because the plot description is funny to them. Of course.
Missed the second half of that sentence, huh?
Oh no, I saw it. Did you miss the part where I talked about "people who should know better for not seeing that mere mentions were being passed off as significant coverage"? That was you, among others.
The Chicago Tribune
namedrops it in passing in an advice column:
Does my boyfriend want me, or a fantasy porn girl?
...
So, in short, don't dye your hair or pad your bras. Keep being your awesome and sexy self and worry not about the gals in "Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls."
I suspect they picked the title of a porn movie at random and failed to notice the distinct lack of gals in this one.
The Journal de Montreal includes it in a
listicle about parody porn movies. Two of the references offered in that AFD are actually about an entirely different Harry Potter porn parody.
I'm not here to argue about some lost cause or borderline case. The subject of the article so clearly fails the notability guideline that I was going to just prod it and move on, but it has already been prod'd and deleted and recreated and AFD'd and not deleted. Your comment in that AFD is just the icing on the cake.