Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XXX Action Clips Channel (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Channel Zero (company). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XXX Action Clips Channel

XXX Action Clips Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Tagged for notability since 2019. Previously deleted in 2007 DonaldD23 talk to me 03:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete website is dead and seems to redirect to north.ca. I can't find any refs to the channel, just various adult clips that hit on the words in the phrase. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  CRTC for not adhering to license requirements on the channel, the other focuses on Rogers Communications showing a free preview of the subject. Global News The Globe and Mail - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no indication this is notable with little in the way of any coverage beyond trivial. Disagree with a merge, as none of the content is sourced and I don't think having this specifically mentioned on the parent company article would be particularly appropriate anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you oppose a

  blank-and-redirect? ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  00:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @GhostOfDanGurney: I am indifferent to that, seeing as someone could just create a redirect anyway if an article is deleted. As to whether i'd care much if the history was retained in a redirect scenario - I wouldn't, if that were a clear consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article already has two references from Mediacaster, a Canadian trade magazine for the cable and new media industries which is no longer published. https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3AMediacaster Once notable, always notable. The fact that the website is no longer active is not a valid argument for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:SIGCOV. They are literally a passing mention. I noted this in my own statement, that I couldn't find anything beyond trivial. If you can, please disclose this for consideration. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I'm puzzled as to why someone like
  HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this network even active at this point? Looking at Bell's channel page there's no network by that name now available, and everything 404s (and Channel Zero doesn't even own any adult entertainment interests now). I'm going to just say Delete because it's woefully undersourced and its niche (short clips of scenes) is now filled by every adult site imaginable (AOV TV is still a thing but at $35 a month it probably has subscribers in the low hundreds). Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can't tell whether this is still active, but that doesn't matter to notability. Notability is not temporary, and the references support that it was notable when it was active. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• But going by past consensus with other adult channels with low subscriber figures, outside 'big name' titled networks associated with a magazine, we tend to err towards redirection to one article rather than separate articles (re: The Erotic Network). That, and by design, this channel type is always going to have low sources because they tend to stay under the radar as much as possible because of their content, and that's only become worse as these networks not only decline into forced irrelvancy, but are no longer promoted either by the network themselves or their carriage partner. And especially as we don't even know this network's current ownership (CZ doesn't even mention it on their page). Nate • (chatter) 18:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As others have noted, the sourced used contain passing mentions only, not significant coverage. Zaathras (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Channel Zero (company). Not finding significant RS coverage to establish independent notability. It's worth a mention on the target page. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But again, does CZ even still have any interest in it? Their webpage doesn't mention any adult content ownership any longer, online or wireline. It's very likely it and its sister channels been folded into one of the 835 subsidiaries a company like

MindGeek has (or is literally just a looping server with two weeks of content on autopilot somewhere in a Bell headend), so to redirect it would be supporting what is not true any longer. It's likely its ownership was spun off in CZ's 2016 bankruptcy to some paper company so that they wouldn't have to have issues trying to find new funding after wiping the slate clean. Nate • (chatter) 23:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Further comment Also going by pageviews, its only peak was an unusual one in 2020, and under 100 since then. This page is barely being accessed as an article right now, thus its purpose as a redirect would be nil with such a clumsy name. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am not convinced by a redirect and I an definitely not supporting merging anything, not least because the integrity of the existing prose is questionable, but that it's very unclear if the supposed parent company have any interest in this (merging would only make sense to me if there is some credible source that links it to the parent currently and if the merged prose is appropriately referenced). It's all well and good wanting to find an

WP:ATD wherever possible, but in this case I don't see how this is viable or appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge a mention to parent article with proper sources per above. No need for a stand alone article with no/questionable notability sourcing. If a properly sourced merge target cannot be identified, Delete. // Timothy :: talk  02:54, 9 April 2023 (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.