Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Lives

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Lives (edit | 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)

"Sex Lives" + "Jay Grdina" got no results on ProQuest. Searching for "Sex Lives" + "Playboy TV" on the same was entirely false positives; just uses of the phrase "sex lives" in terms unrelated to the show. A straight Google search of "Sex Lives" + "playboy TV" turned up just IMDb (from which the plot synopis here seems to be copied) and episodes of the show on sketchy looking porn sites and absolutely no verifiable content. I'm honestly not expecting to find much in the way of RS for a porn show but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The show certainly did exist, but, literally no one seems to have taken notice of it. PlayboyTV doesn't even deem it worthy enough to maintain its old website, so no option but to delete this. I would also note that the de-prod was somewhat deceptive - "Deletion contested, may meet WP:NTV". WP:NTV is a failed subject-specific notability guideline proposal, thus in its current state is just an essay. While anyone can de-prod for any reason, or no reason, this made it look like there is a sub notability guide that this may meet. There is not. Zaathras (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zaathras thank you for reminding me of this. I will stop using this DEPROD rationale going forward. The sentiment in the essay is useful however. Someone who assumes that a nationally or internationally aired program is not notable just because there are no supporting sources cited in the article, probably has not searched thoroughly enough. Of course, this program could be an exception. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trashy, non-notable TV show.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think something being trashy is a suitable reason for deletion. — Jumbo T (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, "trashy" was a simple descriptor, not the deletion rationale. "Non-notable" is the important bit. Zaathras (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent RS coverage to support any WP:GNG claim. Even the notoriously unreliable Luke Ford reference is a promotional press release. Unremarked and unremarkable porn. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2022 (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.