From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Channel Zero (company). Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

XXX Action Clips Channel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Tagged for notability since 2019. Previously deleted in 2007 DonaldD23 talk to me 03:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'm puzzled as to why someone like Eastmain who is very experienced at AfD would have said these references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Giving the benefit of the doubt here but perhaps we've missed something or we're looking at the wrong references - Eastmain, can you point to a specific paragraph which meets the criteria? HighKing ++ 11:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • But going by past consensus with other adult channels with low subscriber figures, outside 'big name' titled networks associated with a magazine, we tend to err towards redirection to one article rather than separate articles (re: The Erotic Network). That, and by design, this channel type is always going to have low sources because they tend to stay under the radar as much as possible because of their content, and that's only become worse as these networks not only decline into forced irrelvancy, but are no longer promoted either by the network themselves or their carriage partner. And especially as we don't even know this network's current ownership (CZ doesn't even mention it on their page). Nate ( chatter) 18:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment But again, does CZ even still have any interest in it? Their webpage doesn't mention any adult content ownership any longer, online or wireline. It's very likely it and its sister channels been folded into one of the 835 subsidiaries a company like MindGeek has (or is literally just a looping server with two weeks of content on autopilot somewhere in a Bell headend), so to redirect it would be supporting what is not true any longer. It's likely its ownership was spun off in CZ's 2016 bankruptcy to some paper company so that they wouldn't have to have issues trying to find new funding after wiping the slate clean. Nate ( chatter) 23:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Further comment Also going by pageviews, its only peak was an unusual one in 2020, and under 100 since then. This page is barely being accessed as an article right now, thus its purpose as a redirect would be nil with such a clumsy name. Nate ( chatter) 23:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply
This is why I am not convinced by a redirect and I an definitely not supporting merging anything, not least because the integrity of the existing prose is questionable, but that it's very unclear if the supposed parent company have any interest in this (merging would only make sense to me if there is some credible source that links it to the parent currently and if the merged prose is appropriately referenced). It's all well and good wanting to find an WP:ATD wherever possible, but in this case I don't see how this is viable or appropriate. Bungle ( talkcontribs) 14:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge a mention to parent article with proper sources per above. No need for a stand alone article with no/questionable notability sourcing. If a properly sourced merge target cannot be identified, Delete. //  Timothy ::  talk  02:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply
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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Channel Zero (company). Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

XXX Action Clips Channel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Tagged for notability since 2019. Previously deleted in 2007 DonaldD23 talk to me 03:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'm puzzled as to why someone like Eastmain who is very experienced at AfD would have said these references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Giving the benefit of the doubt here but perhaps we've missed something or we're looking at the wrong references - Eastmain, can you point to a specific paragraph which meets the criteria? HighKing ++ 11:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • But going by past consensus with other adult channels with low subscriber figures, outside 'big name' titled networks associated with a magazine, we tend to err towards redirection to one article rather than separate articles (re: The Erotic Network). That, and by design, this channel type is always going to have low sources because they tend to stay under the radar as much as possible because of their content, and that's only become worse as these networks not only decline into forced irrelvancy, but are no longer promoted either by the network themselves or their carriage partner. And especially as we don't even know this network's current ownership (CZ doesn't even mention it on their page). Nate ( chatter) 18:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment But again, does CZ even still have any interest in it? Their webpage doesn't mention any adult content ownership any longer, online or wireline. It's very likely it and its sister channels been folded into one of the 835 subsidiaries a company like MindGeek has (or is literally just a looping server with two weeks of content on autopilot somewhere in a Bell headend), so to redirect it would be supporting what is not true any longer. It's likely its ownership was spun off in CZ's 2016 bankruptcy to some paper company so that they wouldn't have to have issues trying to find new funding after wiping the slate clean. Nate ( chatter) 23:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Further comment Also going by pageviews, its only peak was an unusual one in 2020, and under 100 since then. This page is barely being accessed as an article right now, thus its purpose as a redirect would be nil with such a clumsy name. Nate ( chatter) 23:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply
This is why I am not convinced by a redirect and I an definitely not supporting merging anything, not least because the integrity of the existing prose is questionable, but that it's very unclear if the supposed parent company have any interest in this (merging would only make sense to me if there is some credible source that links it to the parent currently and if the merged prose is appropriately referenced). It's all well and good wanting to find an WP:ATD wherever possible, but in this case I don't see how this is viable or appropriate. Bungle ( talkcontribs) 14:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge a mention to parent article with proper sources per above. No need for a stand alone article with no/questionable notability sourcing. If a properly sourced merge target cannot be identified, Delete. //  Timothy ::  talk  02:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply
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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook