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. (non-admin closure) Derild 49 21 ☼ 00:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Adult Film Database[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. Only a few passing mentions on adult news web sites. The rest of the article is all self published content from eithr the website itself or news groups. Ridernyc (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally bother posting my opinions to Wikipedia, but here's mine for what it's worth: I agree that the IAFD is pretty much ignored by the adult film industry, but I do know that its large if not often complete information has been useful to academics studying the porn industry whether for feminist analysis or for the themes and trends in which society takes fashionable interests. The page may not contain any original content, but then that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. I would vote for keeping it in case academic research finds the IAFD through Wikipedia (though I might add it comes first in any related Google searches, so obviously Google thinks it good). Niall Douglas (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty sure this is the most comprehensive and well known adult film database and the references seem to establish notability--the one AVN link says "...the Internet's most complete database of adult movie and video titles, star filmographies and other information nearly unobtainable from any other source." 68.45.109.14 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is mentioned on no-adult news web sites as well, e.g. Folha Online (Brazil) --Matthiasb (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of other articles on the Wiki link to the person's IAFD page. 108.96.159.241 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article gets deleted because this DB is not "notable" then there would be also no point to use it in the adult bio template. Removing it from there would definitly be no improvement in "quality". Testales (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (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.