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.  Sandstein  06:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Akira Is Insatiable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A catalog-like entry on an unremarkable film series; significant RS coverage cannot be found. Does not meet WP:NFILM, the awards listed (even if they were not PR driven) are not significant and well known. I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles follow the same format and have the same notability challenges:

• Ass Worship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cheer Squad Sleepovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lesbian Seductions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For an AfD for articles of similar stature, please see:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wet Asses

This was a group nomination; five pages were deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All four of these articles can't be bundled here because they weren't all created by the same creator; not to mention that they aren't even all from the same production company. But as for Cheer Squad Sleepovers and Lesbian Seductions...worst-case scenario, they could both be redirected to Girlfriends Films. Better yet, what's wrong with discussing the notability of pornographic films at WT:NFILM? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin help comment  Nominator asserts that all five of these articles have the "same notability challenges".  Nominator has not prepared the discussion with the five WP:BEFORE D1 results, and four "Find sources" templates have not been provided.  A quick count of references in the five articles indicates that those counts vary from 4 to 32.  A review shows that the awards won by these five films varies.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that the four extra articles added to this AfD be de-bundled.  I have marked those four articles above with strikeout font.  Please adjudicate the refusal of the nominator to de-bundle.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Further admin help comment  Although I stated in the above admin help that the four extra articles were marked with strikeout font, an editor just now removed those markings.  However, this diff now provides the same information.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I don't see a problem with bundling this AfD, as I've nominated film series from a variety of production companies, and they all have the same format (brief blurb + list of awards) and are equally notability challenged. All have been deleted, including a series from Girlfriends Films: Mother-Daughter Exchange Club AfD.

Re: WT:NFILM, any editor should feel free to start a discussion there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there is little to no community support for the idea of a special porn film guideline, because NFILM was been working rather well -- in contrast to PORNBIO and its repeated attendant fiascos. The proponent has trotted the suggestion out repeatedly, and it has never garnered significant support. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's accurate analysis. None of these articles have any genuinely independent, substantive sourcing. And in no other field to we redirect non-notable works to their production companies/distributors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all relevant content as follows: Asa Akira Is Insatiable with Asa Akira, Ass Worship with Jules Jordan, Lesbian Seductions with Girlfriends Films, and Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman with Alexis Texas. Guy1890 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relevant content to merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is...there are brief descriptions of the films in question (including who directed them) & award/nomination sections...not to mention possibly some of the info that you intentionally, recently gutted from a couple of these articles before you brought them here to AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable franchise, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Davey and Wolowitz. Can't see any real notability here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Regarding the note that useful information has been removed from the articles prior to the nomination, here's the sample from Lesbian Seductions, Dec 2015 page version:

Lesbian Seductions 03

• Released: June 30, 2005 (2005-06-30)^[1]
• Running time: 163 minutes^[2]
• Starring: Nina Hartley, Anna Mills, Porsche Lynn, Charlie Laine, Aspen Stevens, Nicole Moore

That is why I stated that there was no usable information to merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just to clear here about what's really happened to some of the articles nominated at this AfD (in addition to many, many, many more articles that have been edited in recent weeks/months by the same editor that started this AfD), they recently gutted more than 85% of one of the articles, including removing info that was reliably-sourced (just like is highlighted above). Both IMDb & IAFD are reliable sources for release dates, running times, and/or cast lists for these kind of movies. Guy1890 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: "Reply to nonsense & "Reply to yet more baloney", pls see WP:NPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2016 (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.