Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Worx

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X-Worx

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

No indications of notability or significance; a WP:PROMO article. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. Notability is not inherited from other entities such as Miles Long. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability fails & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage at all from independent reliable sources. AVN citations are republished press releases. No RS coverage ~~from~~ found in independent searches. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sourcing, no actual assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add additional sources or delete The article lacks clear indication of notability based on current references provided. If editor can add those to article to support case for notability (see: [[1]]), suggest keeping, if not delete. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2016 (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.