Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PornstarGlobal

PornstarGlobal

PornstarGlobal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable company. Its references are trivial and any coverage fails WP:CORP because AVN and XBIZ are of limited interest and circulation. Article was also created by an SPA, likely an employee of a company that has a history of spamming wikipedia.[1][2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable company. Source are nil, fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• This Adult entity is very well known, reputable, and many references are available to anyone online, I simply didn't have the time to complete the entire Article. I'm not sure why Morbidthoughts insists that I am an Employee? I'm fairly sure an Actual Wikipedia Admin advised him to stop singling out this particular issue some months ago. I know music, and I know porn, that's all I can tell you. A couple random editors don't like the PornStarGlobal site from some things that made them mad in the past, but I can't help that, nor does it change the facts [3]. I didn't even post the link to the site itself, and this article has been thriving for months. Morbidthoughts is making my contributions feel unwelcomed, and I advise that his obvious obsession with this particular issue be looked into. Solidcontrib (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Nymf _hideliho! 05:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Have requested Mediation. Please see: [4] and [5] Solidcontrib (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation has been suspended pending the outcome of this AfD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (MedCab coordinator) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as those that propose this deletion are acting with bias that does not run parallel with Wikipedia Guidelines. No thought of merging, expansion, clean-up, or use of appropriate mechanisms rather than deletion were considered before AFD[6]. The Article in question does in fact have some useful content and at the very least should have gone through a standard cleanup, disputed, or expert-subject chain of consideration, opposed to it's instant Nomination for Deletion. I encourage Morbidthoughts to justify his acceptance of many other AVN and XBIZ references in numerous Articles including the Awards Section of [7] which clearly has both [8] and [9] listed as Notable Articles / References, but then states that "references are trivial and any coverage fails because AVN and XBIZ are of limited interest and circulation" above when pertaining to PornstarGlobal [10]. As stated on the Mediation Page, there are bountiful References Online in regard to PornStarGlobal some of which are / were listed within the Article, but not evident at all on Articles such as: [11] for example. I would also like to encourage Morbidthoughts to validate his accusation above referring to my being an SPA. My validation of less than honest intentions lies within the visible * Delete votes - an example would be Carrite making the uninvestigated assumption that the Article is a "non-notable company, sources are nil, and it fails GNG", when in reality it carries twice the citation, reference, and notability weight as his own Company Wikipedia page Mutant Pop Records. Do I personally know Mark Hanford[12], one of the actual originators of the Mutant Pop concept, and Mutant Pop Radio Show DJ from Boise ID. in the 80's, yes. Would I propose Mutant Pop Records be deleted because of the lack of some obviously overlooked pertinent information, no, I would follow procedure and give it the benefit of the doubt without allowing personal opinion and favoritism to cloud my judgment. Solidcontrib (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)