Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutegirlfriend

cutegirlfriend was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

I mean how gay! no not really, i mean why did anyone list it on vfd in the first place?!? Sexual maniac (unsigned)
 * Sexual maniac, you seem to have both written the article and posted this VfD. However, I do agree that the article should not be present at Wikipedia, and as such vote delete. - Vague Rant 12:10, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article does not establish any notability. There is no support for the claim that it is "frequently visited", and that description is POV in itself. &mdash; David Remahl 12:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Alexa rank of 1,748,110  I think this ought to be a speedy. Dunc|&#9786; 12:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart from the above, this feels closer to using wiki for advertising (ie, being a stub that basically serves a purpose of linking wiki to a page with no great merit than any other porn site). If there is in fact some special reason why this site would be memorable or valuable, other than "its just another porn website", then please specify the points of interest we're missing. FT2 12:21, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Changed to speedy. violet/riga (t) 12:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see it has gone, I don't see any grounds for a speedy under current policy but agree it should be one somehow, entire content was Frequently visited pornographic website, displaying images of teen girls having hard core lesbian sex with each other and masturbating using vibrators and dildos plus the URL of the site. Andrewa 17:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: That was me who did the speedy. The reason was that it was spam.  An article that is only a link to an external site is a speedy candidate.  It seemed to me that the words wrapped around the link in that article were no more than the false ad copy one gets in a spam e-mail.  It was a slight stretch of the rules, but I couldn't see a porn spam ad sitting on Wikipedia for 7 days or more.  If anyone wishes to vote for undeletion on VfU, I will admit that I was pushing the definition slightly in the speedy deletion.  Geogre 18:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I support the speedy deletion, drop me a line if it comes up on VfU. Fire Star 15:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe that the speedy deletion was justified under #4 (useless substub) and #3 (vandalism by submitting inappropriate content) of speedy deletion guidelines. - Mike Rosoft 16:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it was not a useless substub. Covered under #4 are items where the article content does not add anything that is not obvious from the title. It had several fact items in it (claims of popularity, info about what sort of pornography it hosted, and a link). It was not obvious vandalism and the two reasons it could be inappropriate was that it was advertising / linkfarming, something for VfD to determine. Posting contentless or POV content is not vandalism (unless done knowingly and repeatedly). &mdash; David Remahl 19:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I vote keep out of pure spite, because I don't think this qualifies as a candidate for speedy deletion. It's an article about a website, so the question is over notability, and that's something for VfD to decide. Everyking 19:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote delete out of pure spite. Plus Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.