Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naked Ambition: An R Rated Look at an X Rated Industry


 * 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 Speedy Keep. Nominator withdrawn, no votes for deletion. Cavarrone 06:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Naked Ambition: An R Rated Look at an X Rated Industry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable porn book and documentary. Refs appear RS in the article, but dubious when clicked.Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Раціональне анархіст, here you really have to elaborate further on the sources... I clicked on them and at first glance they look valid. Could you illustrate what you mean? Cavarrone 22:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if they're fo-sho RS or if they're blogs or no-editorial-control content-generators masquerading as reliable sources. The content of the SFGate article is an interview/puff-piece by Violet Blue (who should be credited, per WP:NEWSBLOG, in the ref). ThePhoenix is The Phoenix (newspaper)'s website; a coalition of Boston-area alternative weeklies shifted to the internet. The last source, allegedly by Variety, actually goes to highbeam.com, which appears to be a search-engine or aggregator which has captured a press-release.
 * I'm reconsidering and sort of back to neutral. If somebody were to pop in another really solid RS, I would immediately withdraw.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP Current article sources in San Francisco Chronicle, Daily Variety, and Boston Phoenix show that WP:NF has been established.  No matter the topic, notability is established per sources BEING  available, and not their use or lack within an article. Quickly found were E-Film Critic, DVD Verdict, DVD Talk, The Film Guide, CHUD, Variety, Hollywod Reporter, New York Times... and many others. Topic easily has the requisite coverage. Wow. Who else remembers what WP:BEFORE is about?  I predict a speedy snow.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Kudos to MichaelQSchmidt for his excellent work above. I suggest a withdrawal and a speedy close now. Cavarrone 12:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, those are nice (particularly those at the end, i.e., the NYT, after the more dubious ones). If they had been in the article to start with, this AfD wouldn't exist. So, consider withdrawn and close.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the withdraw and close, ... but please remember WP:NRVE. IE: notability is found through the existence of topic sources and not through their use or not within an article. And had WP:BEFORE been followed, you might have tagged the article for work and avoided an AFD all together. Remember WP:NOTCLEANUP.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:38, 4 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.