Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamour Solos (2nd nomination)

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glamour Solos[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film series. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant.

First AfD closed as "Keep" in 2016, but the arguments for keeping were not compelling: "many awards, notable" etc. Two years on, it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A movie with only graphical pornography will never pass in WP:NFILM, except with a notorious prize like as best movie or with a characteristic that is the difference of the hundreds of scenes recorded annually, as for example the pioneer in a video format or form of distribution, etc.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This film's only claim of notability per WP:NFILM is "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." An award win in a niche category needs acknowledgement by reliable sources independent of the award giver for it to be considered major. Lacking non-trivial reliable source coverage, it fails the notability test. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I wrote in my original nomination, "Fails NFILM and the GNG, and violates WP:NOTDIR. "Best Solo Release" (aka something like "Outstanding Achievement in Masturbation") falls well below the NFILM standard of "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". No independent sourcing, reliable or otherwise. Just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of castlists. The article just bristles with unacceptable content -- original research inaccurately conflating three different video series with similar titles into a single line, cut-and-pasted promotional copy, wretched sourcing. It also achieves new depths of porn related stupidity: among its listed notable female performers are male professional poker player Kenna James and former major league baseball player Randy Moore, who is apparently masturbating posthumously. There's no reason to salvage anything from this mess"; the article was cleaned up a bit, but what remains demonstrates the lack of reliable source coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NFILM or WP:GNG with a lack of coverage in reliable sources and masturbation-specific awards are not major or notable Atlantic306 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2018 (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.