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. Mojo Hand(
talk) 03:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Tagged for notability since 2010, lets make a decision either way. Unreferenced, I don't believe it has lasting notability
Gbawden (
talk) 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per
WP:NF. The article does not show or demonstrate any nobility. It also contains a source that directly conflicts with
WP:NF ("Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues").
~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: with respects to
User:Oshwah, notability is not dependent upon an article saying 'I'm notable because..." or by sources being used or not IN an article... notability is dependent upon them being available. See
WP:NRVE. I will do some work and report beck.
. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Good call on that point, MichaelQSchmidt. Let me locate some sources and see if they are sufficient to meet
WP:NF per
WP:NRVE, which would cause my vote to change.
~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs) 19:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Per failing
WP:NF. Expanding searches finds this
soft core film exists, but lacks coverage in secondary sources. Being verifiable, it might be worth being listed in filmography's of its cast and production, but not as a separate article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:43, 27 August 2014 (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.