Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtian de Medici


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Xtian de Medici

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failing WP:NCORP. Very little in terms of sources to be found on google. Some mention in passing of the fashion label. Probably more sources about the person Christian/Gunner de Medici than the fashion line, leading to questions about inherited notability. The references provided 1: local news, 2:dead link, 3:dead, 4:some 8 year old porn stuff (which is a lifetime in porn years), 5:dead/times out, 6:mention in passing, 7:mention in passing, 8:dead/times out, 9:mention in passing. Also considered redirecting to Gunner de Medici but dismissed this as there is a strong indication this may also fail WP:PORNBIO given lack of indication of awards or notability for establishing a new genre, but mainly due to weak or insufficient main stream references. Article also seem to suffer from link rot. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- a promo page on a label that does not meet notability guidelines. The topic is already covered in Gunner_de_Medici and this is sufficient; no need for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, totally promotional and fails WP:SPIP too. -- HighKing ++ 18:52, 22 September 2017 (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.