Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pornographic film studios

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. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of pornographic film studios[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)

Per WP:TNT I propose to exclude this article. It's confusing, to unnecessarily separate hetero and homosessual studios, part separated by country another not. In addition to a not referencied description about pornographic studio. It could be corrected, but I prefer to exclude the redirects, associations and history of the page and recreate other more clear. Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, fails GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Easier to improve an article than to destroy it and recreate it. Or just make something totally new and copy it over. No reason to delete. Valid list article, aids in navigation, all entries are blue links. Dream Focus 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proposer makes no valid policy-based rationale for deletion. He gives a rationale for improvement, but AfD is not cleanup. Go ahead and rewrite the article, there is no pressing need for deletion of the history before doing that. As for Davey2010's claim that this does not meet GNG, are we seriously to believe that "pornographic film studios" has never been "discussed as a group or set" (the requirement for lists in WP:N) in reliable sources? That seems highly unlikely. SpinningSpark 15:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup; cleanup is needed but this is a very reasonable list topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's not a perfect article by any means, but it fits perfectly well with anything on Wikipedia's Lists of companies. PvOberstein (talk)
Strong Keep, since it's simply a list of companies active in a certain field. The field itself is notable. (If anyone thinks otherwise I have a bridge they can buy.) And so is each one of the companies listed: Not a red link in sight. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 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.