Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult Film Database

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Film Database

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

Questionable notability. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Internet Adult Film Database. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Agreed, questionable notability but high on nobility. In seriousness, though, phonebooks aren't particularly notable and poorly cited, I see no appreciable difference. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources = no notability = no keep by Wikipedia's criteria. Neither "questionable notability but high on nobility" nor "I see no appreciable difference [from phone books]" comes anywhere remotely near being a justification for keeping under Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
talk) 11:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep IAFD's article was up for deletion and kept. Adultfilmdatabase in many cases has better data than them. Example, IAFD only has 524 titles listed for Jill Kelly, while adultfilmdatabase has 725. In terms of notability they used to be referenced on Tera Patrick's official homepage also. --Pinworm (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Second relist rationale. A few more comments grounded in policy would be helpful.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2010 (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.