Talk:The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimate anal women.jpg

Image:Ultimate anal women.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011143323/http://cleispress.com/book_page.php?book_id=157 to http://www.cleispress.com/book_page.php?book_id=157

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The book and movie certainly exist. There are two sources that confirm that. The third is a duplicate.

As to its notability as a movie, the subject apparently fails WP:GNG. It meets none of the five standard criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other evidence of notability. It fails to meet any of the three alternate criteria described at the same place.

As to its notability as a book, fifty amateur reviewers chimed in a Amazon, but that doesn't count. Taylor & Francis published a review in Reproductive Health Matters by Sue Sullivan [1]. The book got a passing mention in The Telegraph. As a book with one review, it fails Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. Doubtless, with some effort, another might found.

None of the claims of awards made in the article are confirmed by the references given, leading one to a conclusion that the article is promotional (whether accidentally or not).

As a book article, the subject barely passes GNG. All mentions of the movie are superfluous, unless additional sources are found. That is unlikely after ten years. WP:NODEADLINE is stretched beyond its limit here.

As such, the article is a candidate for the following steps: (a) redacting to a single paragraph on the book, with a single mention of the movie, (b) merge to Tristan Taormino, and (c) a redirect. This article is insufficient to be a stand-alone topic.

The article about living person Tristan Taormino has been tagged for four years. It also needs a look. Rhadow (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]