Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hentaipalm


 * 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. --Core desat  05:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hentaipalm

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article appears to be a vanity page promoted by members of the "warez" scene; the nature of that scene (anonymity, etc.) makes it nearly impossible to cite proper sources in addition to the page's likely-vanity status. The article also appears to generally be spam. Bumm13 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable vanity with no possible references.  Moogy   ( talk )  03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fails Attribution and the Web notability criteria. Delete. --Slowking Man 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Seems to advertise the website. -- KZ       Talk  •  Vandal  •  Contrib  07:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Meh, it's notable enough for me to have heard of it multiple times before. Also, I don't much like deleting articles that have build up this much content (good or bad) unless it's just complete BS.--SeizureDog 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Porn site. How many porn sites are there out there? Websites have a pretty high notability threshold and this doesn't meet it. -- Necrothesp 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. HentaiPalm is not just a little "porn site". It contains one of the largest and most active Hentai forums online. We have an article devoted to a pure warez site (AstalaVista) yet that article is untouched. And I do not see how listing the history behind the site and the forum listing could be considered "spam". Draknfyre 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However, said history constitutes original research if not drawn from independent published sources. As to other articles, inclusion is not an indication of notability. If you feel another article should be deleted, you are free to open a deletion discussion. --Slowking Man 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of research I would appreciate not being tagged as a single-purpose account. Checking my contributions would eliminate that idea immediately. Nice research before tagging me with it. Draknfyre 10:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. HentaiPalm is more than a hentai forum; It's a large community of friends where people can discuss anything. It's not an advertise; It's a well written documentation of history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Highneko (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC). — Highneko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Can you provide any reliable sources to document this? And can you explain how the site meets the Web notability criteria? --Slowking Man 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I can't. I'm just a regular member there who has been around and seen these historic events happen. It's a large community; thousands of people have seen these events take place. I would like the history to be known and the sacrifices people have made to keep it alive over the years. Highneko 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I'm sorry, but this sounds like original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. --Slowking Man 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked for any sources yet. Let the thing continue to grow then maybe we'll have more references. Highneko 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity and all unverifiable content to boot. SubSeven 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: It's more notable than a number of erotica-based articles on Wikipedia, but it's not too notable outside of the community that they have there. InsaneZeroG 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Over half of the content in the passage is verifiable, just visit the site. As for vanity, that is completely false. Hentai means perversion, and usually refers to anime perversion. This is a form or art, not pornography. The site does have a small vain section, but this article is about hentaipalm and its affiliates, not a small portion of the forum. To call this vanity would be saying Da Vinci's work as well as any other artist that uses nudity in his work is vanity and should be deleted. As for veriability, most of wikipedia is unverifiable information, so that is a very weak argument. Sabuske 20:51, 6 March 2007 — Sabuske (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Visiting the site" is original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. --Slowking Man 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The accusations of Spam, Conflict of Interest, Advertising, and Spam are each unfounded (To Sabuske... When they say Vanity, they are saying that the article is only there to show off or advertise, rather than share information). With regards to Spam/Advertising, this article is not an advertisement. It is a recounting of the history of HentaiPalm from its conception to the present. The only way you're likely to find this article is if you are already aware of HentaiPalm and want to know more about it, either by clicking the link in the history thread on the site or by searching for the site here, either of which would make the "advertising" null and void. It also bears mentioning that although the article alludes to the growth of popularity over time, nowhere does it claim that HentaiPalm is the "best" or "greatest" of its kind, something typically present in any advertisement. For the accusation of Conflict of Interest, it should be noted that it was not the owner nor any staff member of HentaiPalm who wrote this article. The author did use Numbus as his primary source, although there are indeed some sources online for those who hunt them down. Drakkenfyre has added some of those links to the article for verification. There is an issue on the count of notability, since hentai sites do not generate a lot of mainstream publicity. However, the information included in this article is accurate, much of it is verifiable, and it is arranged and worded professionally. The article is about a site that has diminished and grown over the course of five years, not something that just popped up overnight. I would push for this article to stay as is, or be merged in some way. It does not warrant deletion. Swaswj 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) — Swaswj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Again, are there any reliable sources for this "history"? --Slowking Man 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the description of reliable sources, it claims that articles can refer to primary sources (documents or people close to the subject). Since the author garnered much of this information from posts by the site owner and various veteran members, and since the majority if not all of these posts can be referenced by anyone without requiring specialist knowledge, they would appear to me as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines. Regardless, I get the impression from the Delete arguments that the veracity of the article is not in question. It appears to be being targeted based on the subject matter of the site itself, which begs the question of Wiki's neutrality. In the end, however, this doesn't hurt HentaiPalm itself, as this information will still be available on the site's forums, so I don't feel a need to debate this further. Swaswj 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment None of that really goes to notability, however.  Why is this website notable over the thousands of others that are out there?Chunky Rice 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no possible reliable sources. Voretus 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let the thing continue to grow then maybe well get some more. Highneko 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How much longer??? The article's been around for almost a full year.  --SubSeven 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the article's failure to attribute the information contained within the article to reliable, independent sources, the article reading like a veiled advertisement, as well as the apparent failure to meet the notability criteria on web content. Kyra~(talk) 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I said I wouldn't debate further, and so I won't. However, I would ask you (all of you) to explain how you can call this article an advertisement. It is simply an account of the site's change and growth over the years. Swaswj 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless somebody provides reliable sources.Sarcasticidealist 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.