Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briana Loves Jenna

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Loves Jenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film series. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For an AfD on a page similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babysitters (film). K.e.coffman (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete does not pass our very low notability guidelines for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the reliable sources in the article such as Forbes, Regan Books and AVN and those found on the Google such as LAWeekly, Sydney Morning Herald and Kapanlagi, Easy Keep - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per:
  • "the second-best-selling adult movie of all time" as of August 2004 article in Salon magazine,[1]
  • "2001 video with contemporary megastar Jenna Jameson, Briana Loves Jenna, is legendary among porn watchers" in LA Weekly magazine[2]
  • "became the bestselling adult film of the year" in Los Angeles Times[3] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant enough for inclusion due to awards, sales, rentals. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Leaning towards keeping because of the reasons already mentioned by Davey2010 and Michig (The Sydney Morning Herald and the LA Weekly article, plus the awards and "bestselling adult film of the year"). Robertgombos (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's comment: I'm not convinced with the sources. This may warrant a redirect to Jenna_Jameson_filmography#Pornographic_films but not a stand-alone article. This is still a direct-to-video release; sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All porn in the United States goes straight to video. Porn theaters haven't been a thing since 1980. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to Pee-wee Herman... Carrite (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the straw man. My point was that theater is not a major revenue stream. All porn is released to video or online. But porn theaters exist congrats! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:17, 17 August 2018 (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.