Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian XXX

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. ✗plicit 12:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian XXX[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)

No coverage outside of industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - industry coverage[1][2] does count[3] and so does a feature in the Village Voice that's already cited in the article[4][5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Industry coverage does not count towards meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Morbidthoughts, disagree with John Pack Lambert Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for more time for policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, industry fluff does not count towards notability at all, this has been well-established in dozens and dozens of pornography deletion discussions. Second, the Village Voice article no longer seems to exist. There's an XBiz article about the supposed VV profile, and this forum post is allegedly by the author saying it was coming out in VV soon, but it is curious that it cannot be found in any archive or reprint. It's only from 2006, not like we're trying to track down something from the 70s here. Even if located, it would only be a single, possible source. Still short of notability requirements. Zaathras (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaathras, I posted the two archived links above. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails inclusion standards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: hopefully this relist actually helps
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zaathras. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources. Industry blotter does not count towards notability, while an article in Village Voice, albeit in two parts, is insufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2022 (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.