Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabesque (gay film)

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque (gay film)

Unsourced article that, if you remove a blatantly POV statement ("It set new standards?"), consists of just two sentences; does not mention why it is notable as an adult film IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~IRK! indeed. Delete as nn.~~ Spec ial K 14:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has changed since I last commented. Asserts sufficient notability. Spec ial K 15:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Notability is asserted via the two GayVN Awards won by the film in 2006 (for which I found a reference and added). There also seem to be a number of reviews of the film by independent sources linked to from the film's official site that could easily be incorporated into the article if it is expanded. LaMenta3 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notability is well established. Clearly well sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testmasterflex (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notability seems established by the two AVN awards. __meco (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards mentioned only establish enough notability to decline a speedy deletion on the basis of no notability asserted. This film meets no criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (films), the assertions of notability in the article do not contribute much proof that encyclopedic notability of the subject does indeed exist. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the article now does address the criteria of WP:NF, as assertions of notability have well sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not my cup of tea, but notability is established by the receipt of major awards within the genre. Needs to be expanded. Is the use of the disambiguation "gay film"" in the title appropriate, or is it more per MOS to just go with (year film)? 23skidoo (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NF being met by reference 1 and reference 2. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:14, 9 September 2008 (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.