Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wet Asses

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. Sandstein 16:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wet Asses

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

An unremarkable film series; significant RS coverage cannot be found. I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles follow the same format and have the same notability challenges:

Flower's Squirt Shower's AfD closed as no consensus in February 2016. Slutty & Sluttier's 2013 AfD closed as keep, in part based on the assertion that AVN wins are sufficient for notability under WP:NFILM. I believe this to be a faulty argument, as secondary reliable source are required for a stand-alone article, and the awards themselves (even if they are not PR driven, of which I'm not convinced) are not significant and well known. For closed AfDs on comparable articles, please see:

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 6 November 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.