Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlvana

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 keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girlvana

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

Fails WP:NOT as an indiscriminate cast list for a series of porn movies. Two of the features won awards but that notability isn't inherited so this undoubtedly has issues with GNG/N too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So you also could delete Gag Factor. Girlvana won 2 AVN Awards. There is nothing to debate about it. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No two separate films won awards. The series didn't. Have you got reliable independent sources that discuss the series in detail? Please readact your personal attack on me in your previous comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will write 2 seperate article for Girlvana 3 and 4, thanks for your advice! And now I will go off. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have precedence for aggregating award winning movies from a series into a series article (as long as multiple movies from the series have won) like POV Pervert and Gag Factor. As for Girlvana, it won three Adams Film World Guide awards for best girl-girl series (2006, 2007 & 2008). [1] [2][3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited from an individual film to the series as a whole, or vice versa; and the claimed award is not a "major" award for "excellence" as required by WP:NOTFILM. This is just a collection of castlists, not an encyclopedic article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If at least two of the films are notable, then having an article for the series makes perfect sense. Dream Focus 22:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Morbid. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per established precedents, as clarified by User:Morbidthoughts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbid. It's technically true that notability isn't inherited to a series, but I think we should treat it as doing so in this case. Call it WP:IAR if you want, I'm thinking of it as a common-sense interpretation of what that phrase is supposed to mean. Let me explain: Let's say we made articles for each film, two of them (#3, #4) there seems to be consensus would be notable. From that hypothetical point, it'd make a lot of sense (and make the encyclopedia more usable) to merge those two articles into a single article to avoid duplication and establish that this is part of a series. Certainly we haven't *lost* notability in the process, and including content that would not be notable on it's own (they, there's a #1 and #2) about the other films in the series seems entirely within process and policy as well. To turn my thinking around, the end result of a delete result here won't, I predict, be no articles on these films, it'll be two articles, one on #3, one on #4. I think the status quo is better. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:35, 20 November 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.