Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spartacus Enterprises


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. Neil  ム  11:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Spartacus Enterprises

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. This article does nothing to establish the company's notability and currently reads like an ad--should probably be as notable as Good Vibrations or Babeland to have an article Katr67 16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep while I search for sources. This is almost assuredly of local importance. If independent sources can be found then "reads like an ad" can be easily fixed. VanTucky  (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll be willing to withdraw the nom if sources can be found. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid what I might find would not be work safe. Katr67 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are numerous mentions small and large in the Willamette Week. Surely a company voted part of the Best of Portland in a reader's poll is notable? There are also some mentions in the Portland Mercury. VanTucky  (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Best of...by reader's polls is not necessarily notable, depending on the poll--and the category. In this case, its "Best Naughty Attire (Local)" That last word is what does it. DGG (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Simply because something is only of regional importance, does not mean that it fails WP:N. But to assuage your doubts (hopefully), here are seven articles covering the company from AVN, the foremost adult industry media organization. VanTucky  (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per AVN links - shows coverage beyond the local region Corpx 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)--
 * Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:N Harlowraman 20:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How does a company that has had significant coverage in multiple secondary sources fail WP:CORP? VanTucky  (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources. I'd reconsider my vote if sources were found by the close of the AfD. It is a concern that this company seems to get nearly all its coverage in the Portland area. The mentions at www.avn.com sound like reprinted press releases rather than stories written by a reporter. EdJohnston 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment AVN often sounds like a booster because they try to be positive sounding. It's always tough writing about a vilified subject. But they are considered a source that is completely independent of commericial sex ventures, and do not reprint press releases. The fact that this company is a Portland metro area cultural institution is a strong plus for keeping the article. Normally, I lean towards deletionism (if you want to apply labels) but this company has been around so long in the area that it's like the Bono of the sex industry. So notable that one name only is required. VanTucky  (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the 7 AVN links. After reading through them, I disagree that they're reprints of press releases. Yes, a number of them incorporate information from press releases, but I gathered the impression that they were not written by the company). — Black Falcon (Talk) 01:55, 30 August 2007 (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.