Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orgazmik Europe

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. The references are essentially press releases, not independent. I acknowledge the difficulty of sourcing in this field, especially for companies rather than performers, but we need somewhat more than this. I did not base this on the nature of the comments, just the content of the article, though I would advise Erpert that a stronger case is made by avoiding personalities. The effective rebuke to unreasonable arguments for deletion is not attacking the people in the discussion, but that the article gets kept by consensus on the basis of policy and evidence. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orgazmik Europe

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

Notability not established. All refs are either self published or unreliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are the XBIZ articles unreliable sources? Erpert
Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- "XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media." which may be ok for some things, but not to establish notability. They are in the business to promote adult industry businesses. This means they aren't independent of the subject matter.n Dennis Brown (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That isn't exactly what "independent" means from a Wikipedia standpoint; please review
    Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Did you even look at the story? it isn't an article. The biline is "Company Press". No author. It is a press release. You can find the exact same worded press release on other websites. This doesn't qualify as an independent source, plain and simple, because it came from the company itself. It is a primary source published on another website, and on many other websites, as a press release. All you have to do is Google any snippet for yourself. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why would I add a reference to an article without looking at it? Anyway, the supposed "many other websites" are only six, which, aside from XBIZ, are all blogs, mirrors, or unsourced wikis. Those are unreliable, but the XBIZ link isn't. Erpert
        Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        The XBIZ reference is the one that is a press release. Regardless of how reliable the website may or may not be, they were still publishing only a press release. A press release can't be used to establish notability, via any interpretation of
        WP:N, regardless of who publishes it. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Okay, I'll give you that for the fourth reference, but it doesn't apply to the fifth one (nor the first). It would be different if all the references were primary. Erpert
        Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  - Comment: Dennis, XBIZ is part of the pornography PR machine in the sense that they cover issues regarding the pornography industry. Disqualifying XBIZ as source for not being independent of the pornography industry is like disqualifying ESPN from all sports articles as not independent of the sports industry. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you will read all the comments, or just follow the links, we are discussing a press release, not an article. I don't care if the press release was published in the New York Times, it can't be used to establish notability. Added to the fact that the creator has already admitted that all the other sites are blogs and fail WP:RS, it becomes very clear. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That isn't what I said; I said the mirror sites (which aren't in the article) are from blogs. Erpert
        Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Delete. No evidence of notability. No sources independent of the subject. All sources promotional/advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, the XBIZ references are clearly independent of the subject (you don't have to disagree with everything I do, you know). Erpert
  Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - You're just being purposefully obtuse now. The XBIZ references are quite plainly identified as "COMPANY PRESS" in bold type capital letters right under the headlines. XBIZ is part of a PR business, and the article subject is likely one of the PR business's clients; but whether it is or not, the "references" are unmistakeably press releases which contribute absolutely nothing to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Purposefully obtuse"? It would be nice if your insults weren't just big words that mean nothing, for once. Erpert
      Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - Obtuse at Wiktionary. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I know what it means. What I was getting at is that HW tends to act like a smart aleck and seems to have a vendetta against articles I create. Erpert
        Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Please avoid
        accusations in discussions. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        "Smart aleck" is a personal attack? It would different if I said "smart-ass". Anyway, that wasn't my intention, but to be fair, people attack me all the time and no one ever seems to care. For instance, wasn't "purposefully obtuse" an attack toward me? Where was your warning for that? Erpert
        Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not indicate in any way how it is notable, beyond the scope of its own bounds; it has no connection with anything else as far as I can see and do not believe it is suitable for Wikipedia.
talk•cont 10:44, 03 January 2012 (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.