Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flava Works


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Flava Works

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nn company John MacReen (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: I take it that John MacReen's lapidary note ""nn company" means "not notable company." To counter this critique, just have a look at the list of references in the article. The company was covered on television (NBC 6) and in numerous blogs. I am sure that more research would show that it also received coverage in Miami-area newspapers. And here is another reason not to delete the article: The Wikipedia contains numerous entries on companies that produce gay pornography featuring mostly Caucasian men. Why is there much less coverage of companies that work with men of color? The Flava Works entry attempts to remedy this lacuna. GBataille (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs a rewrite for tone issues. However, what I see in the article is a business with enough notoriety to have been drummed out of one city, banned in another, and featured in an investigative TV report in that second city. I'm going to say that's sufficient notability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Has sufficient coverage to satisfy notability. It does need some cleanup, though. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: In response to critiques regarding its tone, the article has been purged of some language that could be read as sensationalist and non-neutral. GBataille (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Further documentation (namely, references to two Miami Herald articles) has been added to show the notability of Flava Works. GBataille (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I found only three articles on Factiva mentioning "Flava Works", the two from the Miami Herald and "Man sues over 'depictions' in porn films: Claims pledge of anonymity when he directed them " from the Chicago Sun-Times so I can understand notability concerns - that is not much on which to base an article. Keep in mind that all of the information in Wikipedia article must be able to be verified from reliable sources.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Commander Keane's comment, I would like to point out that the entry is based on numerous reliable sources, not just the articles in the Miami Herald. NBC 6 should count as a respectable source, and the newsletter of the Chicago Department of Health surely falls into that category as well. There are many entries in the Wikipedia that are far less well documented than the one on Flava Works. GBataille (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am just a little worried that there is original research (eg 'The "House Next Door" Controversy' - are there third party sources discussing that the DVD that pokes fun of the controversy?) and that some of the sources are not reliable (blogs are not reliable, and I don't think press releases are reliable unless they get picked up by the press).--Commander Keane (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also note that AVN, perhaps the premier and most reliable inside news source on the adult industry, covers Flava Works regularly. You would have to dig into these sources to make sure they're significant mentions and not reviews or press releases (which is why this is "note" instead of "keep"), but here they are: - Wikidemon (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2008 (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.