Deletion of Vicca

Comment: It shouldn't be taken as gospel, but given the sheer ''size'' of the porn industry, we need to have a standard for inclusion. Around 100 films (plus or minus 10 is a good figure) is a very decent standard. The biggest problem with this article is the lack of reliable sources - where are they? I've looked (still trying to bleach out my mind from that search) and have not found any. As for the claim that "we keep worse articles, so we should keep this one," that is an ''argumentum ad mediocritum'', which is a very weak argument. Those other articles should probably be deleted as well, unless they're cleaned up to meet  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Per my comment above and IMDB content.  From : ''Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made.''.  IMDB seems like a fine source for movie titles and cast lists. Further, each title is individually verifiable on, say, dvd websites
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: We aren't allowed to quote Wikipedia as a |reliable source, either. Your comment that a Wikipedian in good standing has "made himself an editor" is strange, considering that the point of Wikipedia is for everyone to be an editor. As for your questions, your talk page and the talk page of the article are filled with useful links and offers to help- offers to which you haven't responded. In the meantime, the article is filled with statements unverified by reliable sources, which have been asked for time and time aagin
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)