Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls

[Giraffe Stapler]

Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls (T-H-L) is a 2010 porn parody of a Harry Potter movie. It won no awards. It has no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. It has only one actor with a Wikipedia article (and that's for being on a tv show). I was going to "prod" it but, good little Wikipedian that I am, I checked the talk page and it has already had an AFD.

Ok, I thought, how did this run-of-the-mill porn movie survive an AFD? Apparently it was closed as "no consensus". I can't fault the closure but I can fault people who should know better for not seeing that mere mentions were being passed off as significant coverage. 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.

[rnu]

Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls (T-H-L) is a 2010 porn parody of a Harry Potter movie. It won no awards. It has no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. It has only one actor with a Wikipedia article (and that's for being on a tv show). I was going to "prod" it but, good little Wikipedian that I am, I checked the talk page and it has already had an AFD.

Ok, I thought, how did this run-of-the-mill porn movie survive an AFD? Apparently it was closed as "no consensus". I can't fault the closure but I can fault people who should know better for not seeing that mere mentions were being passed off as significant coverage. 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.

Oh come on!

It is the first 3D gay pornographic film.[8]

Surely that puts it on a level with Passage de Vénus (T-H-L), Roundhay Garden Scene (T-H-L), La Fée aux Choux (T-H-L), The Story of the Kelly Gang (T-H-L), With Our King and Queen Through India (T-H-L), The Gulf Between (T-H-L), The Toll of the Sea (T-H-L), Don Juan (1926 film) (T-H-L), The Power of Love (film) (T-H-L), The Jazz Singer (T-H-L), The Sensorium (T-H-L), Toy Story (T-H-L) and other movies achieving cinematic firsts?

[Giraffe Stapler]

Oh come on!

It is the first 3D gay pornographic film.[8]

Well, that might count for something if the source for that didn't say:

The gay porn adaption of the teen witch saga claims to be the first 3-D movie of its kind...

[rnu]

Oh come on!

It is the first 3D gay pornographic film.[8]

Well, that might count for something if the source for that didn't say:

The gay porn adaption of the teen witch saga claims to be the first 3-D movie of its kind...

Hm, good point. Apparently 3D Belami, released in 2011, was the first Blu-Ray 3D gay porn film.(*,*) I didn't find a source on what the first 3d gay porn film ever was.

[Zoloft]

[SarekOfVulcan]

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?

[Randy from Boise]

You're always welcome to renominate a No Consensus close at AfD, which probably would have taken less time than starting this thread.

Porn movies aren't treated as well at AfD these days as they were a decade ago.

t

[Giraffe Stapler]

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.

[Giraffe Stapler]

You're always welcome to renominate a No Consensus close at AfD, which probably would have taken less time than starting this thread.

Porn movies aren't treated as well at AfD these days as they were a decade ago.

t

Yes, I could do that, but I'd rather point out the obvious and watch people scrupulously ignore it while pretending that Wikipedia is a serious reference work. It's much more fun. And that AFD was in May of last year - are porn movies treated differently now?

[rnu]

[...]
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.
[...]

Wow! I read the column just to make sure it isn't about a woman whose boyfriend is secretly gay. Because if her boyfriend were fantasizing about the "gals" in "Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls" she should very much worry. But nope, DYK level screw-up by the advice columnist.