Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuma: Tales of a Sexual Gladiator

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. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zuma: Tales of a Sexual Gladiator[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how this can be better notable and improved and my searches found nothing good from what I see. This is not my area of interest so I'm not sure if the Wired magazine review and AVN Award are enough but I'm simply not seeing any improvement here. Pinging past user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and other users who seem interested with this topic Gene93k, Spartaz and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable movie, No sources in the article and I can't find any on GNews, Not sure if PORNBIO applies as it's obviously not a biography but certainly fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, PORNBIO is not applicable to a animated fantasy film with original created characters. WP:F is the one we use. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wired magazine was easily searched and found significant coverage of it. [1] Easy to search for and find the award also. The article has links to where to find it on what I believe is probably a pirate site. Don't wish to bother looking into this too deeply though. Dream Focus 18:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if this could be said to be a borderline case, with this piece reviewing a blip of interest, we don't have the significant kind of reliable source coverage that we really need... I feel inclined to just delete the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

series:

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. Ignoring the content, I gave the article a facelift but was unable to find enough coverage in reliable sources to meet inclusion criteria. IF an acceptable article is written on the rather unique PornoMation series, this can be spoken of therein. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails the notability guideline for films. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NFILM. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2015 (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.