Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen Media


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Media

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently fails to meet the GNG or any specialized subguideline. The article has virtually no independent, reliable, verifiable sourcing - many of the links used as cites go to related corporate pages, to press releases, or to dead, unarchived pages. Most of the article seems to be original research about internal infighting at the company. Much of the text is speculative (eg, a long section called "Possible future legal dispute"). Given the general lack of valid sourcing and the discussion of disputes between living persons, the article seems to be riddled with BLP violations. I can't find enough salvageable content to create an article demonstrating notability, so deletion seems to be the only appropriate action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * >Apparently fails to meet the GNG or any specialized subguideline.
 * Meets General Notability Guideline criteria as being one of the most successful independent fetish companies in the adult entertainment industry having an active publication history now over 10 years where nost of the product released does NOT involve explicit (penetration showing) adult content.


 * >many of the links used as cites go to related corporate pages
 * AVN.com and AINews are trade papers of the adult entertainment industry and are NOT part of the company and thus DO count as reliable secondary sources


 * >to press releases,
 * press releases must be verified in order to be included in external publications regardless of whether adult or mainstream


 * >or to dead, unarchived pages.
 * The pages were archived but as stated on the Internet Archive set, the current owner of the company has decided to block current access to the sites past pages.


 * >Most of the article seems to be original research about internal infighting at the company.
 * Most of the article is about the history of the company's operation. :The major conflict ownership of the Ivy Manor series was NOT infighting. That conflict determined a significant period of the history and ultimately the continuation of the company itself namely the conflict between Zak and Sinclaire which resulted in the end of the original company and the formation of the current company.


 * >Given the general lack of valid sourcing
 * You are dismissing AVN / AVNews and AInews as not valid. That is NOT a decision of fact.  That is personal opinion.  It is akin to negating one news source as invalid over another -- i.e, CBS News to be more valid than Fox News if Fox News were the source of the cite without verifying THE INFORMATION in the report itself is not valid.  The INFORMATION in the wikipage is valid.


 * >and the discussion of disputes between living persons,
 * There are no "disputes between living persons". Zak died and Sinclaire wo:n the rights to the original company and restarted it under her management.
 * If you are referring to the debate between Sinclaire and Bardot over the Rubberella character, Bardot has not related to the general public her decision to stop playing a character that she was successful. Sinclaire did say the Rubberella was to continue. Both are statements of fact.


 * >I can't find enough salvageable content to create an article demonstrating notability
 * There is more than enough ACCURATE information regarding a very successful adult intertainment company that has existed and continues to operate.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Lengthy article on porn studio that lacks evidence of notability.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: No notable pornographic awards won, no multiple nominations, and coverage relegated to industry sites (i.e., no mainstream press attention). Yes, I'm using the WP:PORNBIO criteria and this is a company, but the notability criteria for companies is annoyingly vague to me and what makes a pornographic actor notable, or non-notable, seems like a good measuring stick for the companies they work for.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 19:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per WP:N Billbowery (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * >*Delete. Lengthy article on porn studio that lacks evidence of notability.--JohnnyB256
 * Notabily is of successful adult entertain ment company that has lasted over 10 years despite NOT showing mundane penetration films akin to the bulk of the adult entertainment industry such as Wicked.
 * Also unlike other niche fetish film companies that currently exist including Marquis.de, Gwen Media has released over 120 films in its original company and now over 140 films in its current existence -- far exceeding most adult film companies' production library amounts.
 * >*Delete: No notable pornographic awards won, no multiple nominations,
 * False = as stated Gwen Media the company itself won AVN Award for Best BDSM film (Ivy Manor 5: Teacher's Pet) in 2003, and been nominated several more times for AVN Awards as well other awards.
 * Several of its performers have also won AVN Awards as well as other awards
 * >*Delete. As per WP:N
 * company meets said criteria listing as successful long lasting and massive production active film company
 * Comment I would request that the IP address who has been posting these responses please make an affirmative "keep" vote, once, and not respond repeatedly to delete votes. Opening a user account or logging in to one would be helpful. You can then explain about the penetration or whatever.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2009 (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.