Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vixen (adult film company)

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 Greg Lansky. Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vixen (adult film company)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An unremarkable production company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The studio gets some non-trivial RS coverage ([1]) but not enough to satisfy WP:CORP. Almost all coverage is about Greg Lansky with incidental mentions of Vixen. The article is a promotional mess without good secondary sources to back up its claims. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS, came across a few passing mentions but nothing enough to establish notability. Lapablo (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search did produce articles where Vixen was mentioned in addition to the other two companies, but still central to article and not trivial. I do agree that the article could use some cleaning up though. Jacobbailer (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a minute there I wondered why this was up for deletion, but then I realized I had it confused with the actually notable "Vivid" (dyslexia, I tell ya...). Anyway, awards don't automatically equal notability. The notability does not seem to be independent here. Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Greg Lansky. All notable mentions of Vixen are related to Lansky. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do think that should be merged with Greg Lansky who is WP-notable, and there is overlap with awards ascribed to him or his company. It would also help to improve/increase his BLP as he seems like an important figure in the industry. If Vixen becomes bigger, then it can be split out later on? Britishfinance (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2019 (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.