Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Studios

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Studios[edit]

Falcon Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been speedied several time, with a fair amount of grief given to the speediers, including me. So, in the interest of transparency and openness, let's have a full discussion of it. I do not believe it satisfies WP:CORP, and I also do not approve of "placeholder" articles--if an article is not yet written, there's no reason for us to have a page on it. Chick Bowen 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't seem to find any writing about the studio as a business, so I agree that it fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 707 Unique google hits. Don't see anything that attests to notability. Nothing but ads and info from subject. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 563 Unique google hits for amazon.com and most of those are ads. I'm sure there is a better way to determine notability. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was really hoping someone would come up with something that asserts meeting WP:CORP I'm afraid the ebar and gavyn articles do not. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:WP:CORP says that a business is notable if "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." I've listed 3 articles, which constitutes multiple, these are published works not written by Falcon or its subsidiaries, and many people use these articles for information, so I would hesitate to call them trivial. If these don't fulfill that criteria, I'm wondering what kind of published works you are looking for? -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company certainly does meet condition number 1 of WP:CORP.
I guarantee that there are plenty more articles dealing with Falcon Studios or their policies. These were just the first articles I could find on short notice-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have 5 days, so don't feel too rushed. Please reread WP:CORP and bring us what you can. I don't think thise two articles are enough. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are 3 articles right now, what types of articles are you looking for? These certainly demonstrate that Falcon Studios is of significant notability that others would write significant articles about them. I doubt that a porn company is going to make Forbes 500 or be in a significant stock index, so that only leaves option #1; is there anything I'm missing from option #1? -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely there will never be much "mainstream" coverage of the porn industry and Forbes will probably never cover a gay porn company. Be that as it may, Falcon is a recognized leader in the genre of gay porn studios along the lines of Vivid Entertainment in the straight porn industry (see info above).
As for "placeholder articles", they're called "stubs", and it's a bit disconcerting to see that sort of comment from an administrator.—Chidom talk  04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even a stub must have content and assertion of notability; please see the version at the time for the context of my comment. Chick Bowen 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. There was a marginal assertion of importance, but the content was obviously designed—as you said—as a placeholder. I agree that "placeholder articles" are different from true stubs, which need to be a bit more robust before they're published. I've argued the point several times in the past and probably will again. For example, there are more than 600 "stubs" in Category:Church stubs; many of which resemble the Family Christian Center article. My apologies for not doing more research before responding to your comment. Thanks.—Chidom talk  11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previous version was speedy deleted for because the speedy deleters claimed that it was just a re-write of information from the company's own website, and not because it didn't meet WP:CORP. I have made numerous changes to the article since the nomination that are referenced to sources that are not the Falcon company website. This is probably the most important company in gay porn. The article was linked from dozens of other Wikipedia articles. The new article should be given some time to develop. Zeromacnoo 12:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (with additional comments Nov. 20).[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable producer of pornography. Also, I've a feeling that they did the "Other Side of Aspen" series, which influenced porn ( both gay and straight ) for the next ten years. WMMartin 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. No longer a placeholder. -- Samuel Wantman 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above: notable, decently expanded. --Alynna 20:05, 20 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Falcon_Studios&oldid=1137842161"