Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XCritic (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XCritic

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

Was previously deleted through Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7#XCritic_.28closed.29. Same notability issues seem to still apply per WP:WEB. Sources are not independent of the subject, particularly XCritic, Kleinman.com (website of the owner), and AVN since AVN voting includes XCritic. They're all interrelated. Addition of new sources since last deletion review prompts a discussion rather than a unilateral redirect back to DVD Talk. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, secondary sources, just press releases that I can find. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant evidence of notability. Its supposed "news" site is just a message board. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Hullaballoo. No significant coverage, no evidence of notability, no reliable sources. d m z 19:10, 7 December 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.