Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Mother I'd like to fuck (MILF)

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 Keep per WP:SNOW and the affirmative consensus of this discussion. Those who feel bold are welcome to rename or rewrite the article. (Non-admin closure) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mother I'd like to fuck (MILF)

AfDs for this article:

The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

This article is fit for the Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Yes, it is notable, but only as a dictionary definition at best, and certainly not in its current form that serves merely to defame a few people by name. The vast majority of sources it cites are blogs, flunking WP:RS. The remaining non-blog sources can't objectively source the claims that so-and-so is a MILF/VPILF/GILF, because they are mere opinions, and because MILF contains the first person term "I". When a columnist or blogger calls someone a MILF, that is a statement about the author, not the subject lady. Wikipedia can't objectively repeat it, or refer someone's "MILF status" or call them a "notable MILF" (unless it is somehow plausible that WP would also "like to fuck" the named individual). This term does not merit an article, and should be deleted, and redirected to a list of acronyms or expressions containing the term. Reswobslc (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It would be total madness to delete an article that is clearly notable and the sources are better than in most of the porn star articles (in fact most of the sentences and sources are straight from the porn star articles). There have been many users trying to destroy this article because of reasons that cant be accepted in wikipedia. MILF-genre is one of pornoraphy's most rapidly growing subculture that must be noted in Wikipedia if Wikipedia tryes to be an encyclopedia. As you can see Notable MILFs are in that section because they are famous MILF porn actresses and have received MILF of the Year Awards and so on. Seems to me that someone just have problems with that Sarah Palin is mentioned in this article... or well... maybe with his/her moth... Klassikkomies (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If this article merely mentioned that some media outlet uses this term in the name of an award, that's one thing. But when the article consists mainly of listing real people's names and photos and refers to them as "MILFs", that is not acceptable. Quite simply, Wikipedia may not refer to an individual as a "notable mother I'd like to fuck", per plenty of policies, starting with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and just plain common sense. I note that most of the content you claim Wikipedia can't do without, is content you have added yourself, and your deletion of others' warning templates and abrasive use of profanity toward others bringing up BLP concerns is hardly appropriate either (seeWP:CIVIL). Reswobslc (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep (provisionally): Interesting. However vulgar and repulsive to some, it is part of American vernacular English and does pass WP:N (the term made national news here). Initially, I considered nominating it for AfD. However, the term is a generational icon, is recognizable across generations, and many references can be found (beyond blog reports). WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS notwithstanding, if the subject matter weren't of a pornographic nature, the ongoing debate within the article would be minimized. Assuming the author(s) are willing to work on the wording, flow, and encyclopedic content, a semi-protect should be placed on the article to prevent incessant juvenile vandalism then re-evaluated.--Sallicio^$\oplus$ 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment THe term's notability (as a dictionary entry) is unquestionable, and WP:CENSOR is not the concern here. The concern is the entire article consists chiefly of naming real living people as MILF's, contrary to WP:BLP. Reswobslc (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: There is nothing defamatory. The persons in question star in "MILF-genre" films and win awards for being MILFs. Repulsive as it is, it is passing WP:N and the "MILF" subjects are passing WP:BIO.--Sallicio^$\oplus$ 05:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sallicio--see below--some of the material in the article originally would not pass BLP--see the now deleted GMILF section, especially the last sentence of it. those people are not porn actresses. DGG (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw that in the diff... totally agree to that aspect.--Sallicio^$\oplus$ 06:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep in part The basic MILF material is acceptable , per NOTCENSORED; the mention of individuals is problematic, but I think the porn actresses involved essentially use it as a trademark. I have however removed two parts of the article as BLP enforcement that I consider to be clear BLP violations: First, the VPILF portion. It is possible that this material is defensible as an internet meme, but it would need to be separate. It does not reasonably fit under the general title and description, which is prejudicial. I am not sure what position I would take about it as a separate article--the person involved certainly has no right to privacy, and I'm not going to get involved in the discussion if it is rewritten as a separate article. second, there was material under GMILF, mentioning the same figure, and some mainstream actresses who most decidedly do not use the term. The sources for this were youtube and blog postings. I consider this absolutely beyond the pale, at least with respect to the non-political people in that section. After I removed the VPILF section, Klassikkomies restored it. This is not acceptable as BLP, and it is not acceptable under the arb com decision about articles relating to Palin. I think the net effect of this was to take the opportunity to be nasty even at the cost of making the article very vulnerable, and was POINTy, not good faith editing. I removed it again, and intend to block him if readded unless there is consensus to restore it from other admins. I have never advocated the removal of anything as being pornographic. DGG (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment User:DGG who have deleted all the mentions of Sarah Palin from the article also gave this to my talk page for devoloping the article with proper sources: "==Warning==

This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to MILF, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I have removed clear BLP violations from the article MILF. Including mainstream actresses on the basis of youtube and blog postings is unacceptable. Ditto for political figures. I shall block you immediately if you restore either. DGG (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)." And the picture of one of the most famous MILF of our time, Deauxma, have been deleted from the article among other things... Real nice, real nice... I guess this is Wikipedias neutral point of view... Well... Klassikkomies (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're implying about DGG here, but I'm not sure you fully understand WP:BLP. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This subject can be covered by adults in appropriate articles such as Age disparity in sexual relationships (where it's already included). I don't think this type of vulgarity is appropriate or encyclopedic. It can be redirected to an appropriate article for thsoe who want to learn about the subject. But maybe I'm wrong. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment On the subject of vulagarity, ChildofMidnight, remember that Wikipedia is not censored. We have an article on Fuck for a reason. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Consensus is clearly against me. Perhaps it's notable. We'll see what develops. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep But remove any material that violates WP:BLP. The term is widely used in the English language and is used as a marekting tool by several porn actresses. Jonesy (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and split Provided we can keep it in line with wp:BLP there are potentially two valid articles here, one explaining the term - thogh currently we don't have much more than a wiktionary entry and the other being list of Porn Actresses who work as MILFs but both will require constant patrolling to make sure the list only names self identified MILF actresses and to avoid naming people in the main article. Also I agree with Salicio's suggestion that we semi protect. ϢereSpielChequers 10:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. MILF is now everyday expression for a sexually attractive older woman therefore notable. Move the porn actresses to a seperate article. Archivey (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a notable expression, I think the article could use some cleanup, and some more description of the term, origins etc. Sources like this one and this Guardian article could help with making the article more encyclopaedic. I think that the Notable actresses in the MILF-porn genre should probably go, however, those sort of lists can just grow exponentially, and the criteria for inclusion are very vague. Replacement with a paragraph about the "Milf-porn Genre" will suffice, the list doesn't add to the article, and just serves to advertise certain selected porn stars. – Toon^(talk) 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The actresses presently listed have I think all or almost all of them good references for using the term as a positive designation of their specialty--some have actual awards for it. I can't encyclopedia how listing a porn actress by declared sub-genre is inappropriate, at least if limited to those with awards or award nominations for it. As for the lead picture of one of them, it wasn't I who removed it, and I in fact consider such a picture appropriate if the reason for using her in particular can be justified. If the expression however is considered mainstream otherwise, as acceptable designation for a sexually attractive older woman (which iI rather doubt), then probably they should be in a separate article. DGG (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the inclusion of a list of porn actresses who are noted for being Milfs is a little too specific. The article isn't about porn actresses who have been presented as Milfs, but the term itself. I think that we have to take this list out; whether it's to a separate page or wherever. This is, however, a content dispute; and should take place at the article's talk page, since I've already argued my point for the article's existence. – Toon^(talk) 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep possibly Rename. The subject of the article is obviously notable, as this term is now within wide usage. We need to keep a close eye on WP:BLP violations and make sure nobody subjectively lists famous women on here for giggles. I'd also like to suggest moving the page to MILF (slang) as "MILF" (though an acronym) is the term in question. Stretching out a slang acronym (see LOL for instance). CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• keep and rename Well known, often used term, [1] (although some of those mentions are of a terrorist org called MILF) [2] but MILF (slang) would be more of the type of title we have on Wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Rename MILF (slang) sounds so much better and this is very notable. ReverendG (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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.