Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grub Girl


 * 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)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Grub Girl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable porno. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment The nominator has also nominated every performer in this film who has a Wikipedia page. Three requests have already been closed as Keep, one was closed because it was too soon to relist. 209.90.140.72 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And two of them are at present failing.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ...which does not make this kind of behaviour acceptable. You can't take a film, nominating in a few minutes the whole cast for deletion with the rationale "non notable actor" and THEN discover if some of the subjects you nominated are notable or not. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. First of all you have to accurately check articles to see if they pass relevant notability guidelines, if they fail you have to make WP:BEFORE, finally you can nominate them. Also consider alternatives to deletion. Starting AfD nominations is not fishing. Cavarrone 06:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment A lack of WP:BEFORE. Information can be cited to books, and an in-depth online article by KNAC  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 14:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A local radio station's website (blog?) and name-drops in two niche non-notable books are a long way from satisfying GNG. See comment below.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read and try to understand WP:NEWSBLOG, and understand that if the "niche" is film or horror, then the books covering film or horror are worth consideration for a horror film... like it or not.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator has not made an argument for deletion. Saying "not notable" is not enough, you need to explain why it does not meet the policy. Since you have nominated so many articles with the same lack of rational I am not going to do your homework for you. Chillum 17:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NFRINGE observes: "Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season)." - I bring it up in regards to the only plausibly RS in the Grub Girl article, the Esquire web-column in which this straight-to-video film had a few inches of space in a "worst of" list (it didn't "win"). Discounting it, there's nothing left.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry... but WP:NFRINGE is set to speak toward notability of fringe theories and rumours and is not to be used for even the crappiest of films UNLESS that film is somehow asserting or explaining some fringe theory... and this film as a fictional narrative that makes no fringe claims. Others may not be in such a hurry to ignore or unfortunately misinterpret notability guides notability as are you.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. One of those sources presented here is self-published; lulu.com is a dead giveaway.  The other was published in 1995.  I don't see how that could possibly be referring a 2006 film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note: All three of the above-mentioned references are now in the article in question here. While one of the books may indeed be self-published, the infomation currently used from this source in the article is basically confirmed by other sources. The second book is apparently from 2005, and it appears to refer to the original comic book work for which this movie was apparently inspired by. The last source basically appears to be a reprint of a press release.
 * I'm no expert on Wikipedia's film notability guidelines, but apparently neither is the nominator of this AfD (who again is likely not at all actually new to Wikipedia)...who has appeared to be on a tear recently trying to delete as many pornography-related articles as they can get away with after being frustrated that one their treasured articles was under scrutiny at another AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm going with Keep. I came across this article whilst reading about Glenn Danzig. That it is not just a run-of-the-mill porno but is based on a comic and produced by a well-known metal performer makes it notable IMHO. Also concur with Chillum that the nominator hasn't made any argument whatsoever to back their claim. Maxcelcat (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - I've found a few sources (not perfect but then again it's not a widely known film) so notability is there. – Davey 2010  Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:30, 9 January 2015 (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.