Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Goo Girls

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 Let's do it this way... find reliable third party sources (see WP:RS, WP:V) with information on this then we'll keep the article. W.marsh 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Goo Girls

German Goo Girls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is inappropriate for anyone to be viewing on Wikipedia. There is also some vanity involved with a user on the discussion page stating he owns the rights to the production of the German Goo Girls. Debaser23 10:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - are you sure this AfD should be about German Goo Dolls? That page doesn't even exist (and has never existed). I think you meant German Goo Girls? Jayden54 11:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Oooops my bad.Debaser23 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteAppears to be a unsourced promotion piece. No reviews from independent reliable sources are presented to show notability. As for the statement "..inappropriate for anyone to be viewing.." remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is vanity and/or advertisement. The owner is also causing trouble by pushing the content in a specific direction, which makes the article his P.O.V. The importance/notoriety of the subject is also questionnable. Lgriot
• Delete for lack of evidence of notability and not showing any WP:RS that would allow WP:V. Valrith 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The films this company produces are actually fairly notable within it's pornographic fetish genre. It's wikipedia entry is fairly accurate as well. Could be cleaned up a bit though. Static Universe 07:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A notably disgusting lot. Though the POV is positive, the negative aspects are obvious enough not to need discussing.DGG 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Run of the mill German porn, of no notable importance. Seems this page was only put up so the owner can send people to his affiliate program. He removes others links and gets nasty like he owns Wiki. DELETE.Theclaytop 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) — Theclaytop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - although it fails WP:V at the moment, I do believe it's quite notable in its niche, and doesn't warrant deletion of the article yet. Let's see if some sources or references can be added, and it can always be nominated again after a month or two. Jayden54 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gangbang's & cumshots are absolutely no novelty in porn. What is the point of this page? It is nothing more than an advert for a particular studio line, one among many. The more I read this vacuous article more I think it should go. Getting an award at Venus amounts to very little. It is a trade show that hands out lots of meaningless awards every year with no serious selection or voting policy (normally the only criteria for inclusion being the the hire of a stand or promotion spend). Delete now. As mentioned before gangbang's & cumshots are no novelty, why waste any more time later. M casios 10:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — M casios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep A lot of no name's in here trying to get this page taken down. Those are probably the same people whose links we keep removing because they only go to spammy pages selling DVDs(which is against Wiki TOS the last i checked, no??? direct links to commercial sites with ref codes?). John Thompson is a very well known producer in Europe and especially Germany. as you can see by looking at the IMDB listing, sadly they stopped listing after 52 titles. As well you can see here the GGG line is notable enough to have 99 reviews about their movies on adultdvdtalk.com. if those are not acceptable references I'm not sure what you need? Yes we run an affiliate program, but we got tired of affiliates fighting over this link so we just removed the affiliate codes from them. No one from our company wrote this article. In fact there are a number of inaccuracies about it that we just don't care to change. We are merely tired of hearing the fighting about what affiliate gets to claim this link so we removed their affiliate codes, thats is all. I left all of the links not relevant to us or our affiliate program. In fact some of them I found to be very interesting. I do not know who removed the others. look at the edit history, i guess. Ianwww 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete nonnotable. Mukadderat 02:00, 7 December 2006 (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.