Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LA Direct Models

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 keep. consensus appears to be that the subject is notable, whether it's to be merged is a discussion for the talk page StarM 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA Direct Models

Article was deleted as A7 and endorsed at DRV and then recreated with sources. I don't think that they are enough being mostly trivial mentions in the course of discussing other things or reading like reprints of press releases. Therefore the article should be deleted as covering a non-notable company. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Looks okay I'm afraid. They are apparently notable within there ummmm... industry... *cough* *cough* ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as above. or Merge with Derek Hay. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largest pornographic talent agency in the world. Frequent coverage by the two main trade journals of american pornography, AVN and XBIZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Epbr123 (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in reviewing the sources, the question for me comes down to whether XBIZ is a reliable source. The XBIZ article about the agency is the only substantive source in the piece that is about the agency that wouldn't run afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS. The rest are press releases and/or mentions of the agency in conjunction with another event with which the agency is in some respect involved. If XBIZ is a reliable source per our guidelines then keep. Otherwise delete for lacking reliable sources and thus failing WP:N. I don't know enough about XBIZ to judge whether their reputation for editorial standards meets our criteria or not. Otto4711 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that I think you're misunderstanding WP:NOT#NEWS. It doesn't mean that news reports can't be used to establish notability; it means that news reports only establish notability if the coverage goes beyond the context of a single event. Epbr123 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that news reports can be used to establish notability. I was referring to sources like the AVN article discussing possible FBI interest in the company, which I don't believe does go toward establishing notability for the agency. I'm also concerned that a large number of the sources appear to be of the press release variety (reports of the agency moving to a different office space for example, or the activities of various models). It really is for me hinging on the XBIZ reference. Do you have any feedback as far as their standards for reportage? Otto4711 (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS states "How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." As well as reporters, XBiz has an editor-in-chief, a managing editor, an editor & puplications director, a news manager, copyeditors, and a proofreader [1] p.12. XBiz is also often used as a source by other publcations [2]. They also indicate whenever an article is a press release, eg. [3], so not all their news reports should be treated as such, eg. [4]. Epbr123 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. Mathmo ^Talk 15:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (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.