Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filly Films


 * 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 and redirect into Combat Zone (studio). Looks like this is a consensus solution: nobody insists that the article should be deleted (rather than merged), and the arguments that no notability according to WP:CORP and WP:GNG has been demonstrated, was not counteracted convincingly. The info would be kept, and the redirect would make the info functional.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Filly Films

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor porn company, of fairly recent establishment. Appears to fail WP:ORG guideline, lacking of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Cavarrone (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Cavarrone (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, received recognition with nominations as candidates for multiple different awards. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no rule in our guidelines saying that a company that received some award nominations is inherenty notable. The only relevant guidelines here are WP:CORP and WP:GNG, and pornographic companies are not exempt from them just because American adult industry is used to have awards with dozens of categories and hundreds of nominations. Cavarrone (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How about a merge with the apparent parent company Combat Zone (studio) instead of just deleting all the info from this page? Just a suggestion... Guy1890 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Those industry award nominations aren't really examples of outside coverage. Ducknish (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. All these nominations show is that the company has taken out ads with the "awardgiving" organization. The only "article" cited about the company is a press release. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with, above. If the information from this page is to be lost, please Merge with page Combat Zone (studio) and retain this page as a Redirect. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no prejudice against a merging, but it is acceptable only if the link with Combat Zone (studio) is clarified. The "apparent parent company" connection needs to be documented. Cavarrone (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The two companies (Filly Films & Combat Zone (studio)) were started and are owned by the same guy (Dion Giarrusso). All of the films generated by Filly Films are distributed exclusively by Combat Films . The two companies in question are even located at the exact same address in Chatsworth, CA (porn valley) . I don't see what the issue would be here with a potential merge. Guy1890 (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant recognition. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, this opinion does not address the concerns. A company is defined as notable by our guidelines only if it received significant, non routine coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I've found only several press release, if you want this article kept please provide us such coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nom - check of news source indicate that there is no independent sources with sufficient neutral information to expand this article per WP:V. What little info there is - is puffery (i.e. opinion) and not facts BO &#124; Talk 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into Combat Zone (studio), agree that the page doesn't meet stand alone notability but can preserve the info in the page of the parent company. J04n(talk page) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.