Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideepthroat (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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ideepthroat (2nd nomination)
This seems more like porncruft and a notable pornsite. This has been nominated before, resulting in no consenus. Vote delete. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising. Bhoeble 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bit of a dirty subject matter, but certainly notable. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Patent vanity. It's a porn site featuring one woman. If this is encyclopedic any exhibitionist can get an article. CalJW 05:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. How could this have survived its first AfD? (Notorious4life 05:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete, with an Alexa rating of 31,092. Not notable. feydey 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really interested in voting on this one, but isn't 31,092 a quasi-notable Alexa score? We do cover other sites in the 30,000s.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Acually 31,092 is considered very low for a porn website --Jaranda wat's sup 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 07:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bit of a dirty subject matter, but certainly notable. -Lauren MC (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The comment above was left by IP 68.197.131.215
 * Delete. The site does not appear to meet WP:WEB.  With the amount of ponography related websites being listed it might be worthwhile to attmept to get a community wide concensus on a bar of notability for such articles.  Movementarian (Talk) 11:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It may be a porn site, but it's a notable porn site. She has a talent and she's known over the internet as Heather the deep throat girl. That seems notable enough. I've seen far less notable sites having a page in the time I've been on Wikipedia. It isn't like this site is the least notable out there. Who's it going to harm by staying here? tv316 13:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. Can you provide references to back that claim up?  Movementarian (Talk) 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't provide hard copy references. What I spoke of was years of using the internet and first hand experience of the matter. Heather was everywhere a few years ago. Even today you can open Kazaa or any file sharing software and search "deep throat" and ideepthroat and Heather will show up in a majority of the results. tv316 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That information doesn't constitute a verifiable source and still does not help it meet the criteria in WP:WEB. Movementarian (Talk) 20:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Valuable information, famous website. --pankkake 15:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. Can you provide references to back that claim up?  Movementarian (Talk) 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Valuable information, because I always wondered who was this girl I saw everywhere on P2P. --pankkake 19:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a web directory. Movementarian (Talk) 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is more about the girl than about the website. The article may be moved to her name. --pankkake 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think she meets the criteria in WP:BIO. Movementarian (Talk) 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a means of advertising. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. What is advertising ? Is the Microsoft article advertising ? --pankkake 19:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Microsoft is a company that has verifiable importance and is an industry leader. Can you say the same about ideepthroat.com?  Movementarian (Talk) 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I would just say keep because it is notable website. But may I suggest MOVING to Ideepthroat.com because it would seem more appropriate that way. — M o e   ε  19:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. How is it notable? Movementarian (Talk) 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's notable if someone added it to Wikipedia and it actually stay there. :-) Besides, what harm is it causing? — M o e   ε  21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * People add non-notable crap to Wikipedia all the time. Just because someone puts it here doesn't make it notable.  The harm is that it does not appear to meet the criteria guidleines.  Movementarian (Talk) 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep 2nd Nomination says it all for me. If you couldnt get rid of it last time enough people obviously think its worth keeping. Jcuk 22:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I know a lot about porn and this one is definitely notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 23:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. How is it notable?  Show me something that merits inclusion per guidelines.  It isn't enough to say, "I heard of that so it is notable".  So far, all I see is an article that doesn't merit inclusion per WP:WEB or WP:BIO.  Movementarian (Talk) 08:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Further investigation Alexa traffic rank 31,000 policy suggests the cutoff as being the top 25,000 for inclusion, only 24 sites link to this site according to alexa 19 according to google. Definately non-notable. Just because it is a porn site doesn't loosen the WP:WEB requirements.


 * Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:


 * 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * This criterion excludes:
 * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4]
 * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
 * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]
 * 2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]
 * 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. [7]
 * The article itself must provide proofs that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.

Anyone voting keep without providing a justification for keeping it under one of the above reasons should be disreguarded for the purposes of this AfD. "Keep it because I like it" isn't a valid justification under current Wikipedia policy. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 00:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * comment Definitely more of a cult than about advertising and one-woman exhibitionism. If advertising is the issue here then simply remove the link. Is this a vote or a debate? How about a little thing called compromise instead of this all out deletion attitude? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Steve789 (talk &bull; contribs) 02:52, 16 January 2006.


 * Comment There is no compromise possible on an article about a web site which does not meet the requirements for listing. It's not the link and it's not the content of the site. It is simply that the site does not meet the requirements to have an article on the Wikipedia. It's nothing personal, just policy. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Though the article needs to be cleaned up and moved to Ideepthroat.com, this site is definitely notable for having been a pioneer of amateur porn on the web. Heather Harmon was interviewed by the UK magazine SOHO and by eyada.com. She and her husband have also produced two movies published by Idt Productions and listed in the Internet Adult Film Database.--ThreeAnswers 10:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for providing refernces supporting your opinion.  I personally don't feel that helps her or the website meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:WEB (respectively).  My biggest problem with using the films to provide an "air of notability" is that the production company seems to not pass WP:CORP.  If you can show that the production company meets the WP:CORP requirement then I would gladly support a move to Heather Harmon leaving this article and Ideepthroat.com as redirects.  I would investiate the matter myself, but I am currently using a company computer and this subject area is forbidden by our internet policy.  Movementarian (Talk) 12:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment.WP:BIO, WP:WEB, and WP:CORP are not policy, they are guidelines. The Wikipedia community is not required to adhere to them as strictly as you seem to want. And while those guidelines aren't written in a way easily applicable to porn stars, Heather Harmon meets the tests of having a large fan base, selling over 5,000 copies of her movies, and everything in the article being verifiable.--ThreeAnswers 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To begin, I never claimed they were policy. As you correctly stated they are guidelines and should be given serious weight.  I don't see how selling 5,000 copies of a porn video makes someone notable.  That wouldn't get any other indepant film in unless it won an award.  Did she win an award?  The guidelines are derived from policy and community concensus.  I agree that they may not always address the subject of internet porn very well and, as I suggested in my first comment, it may be worthwhile to find a community concensus for thier inclusion (i.e. WP:PORN).  My biggest problem is that people have not even tried to establish why she merits inclusion beyond arguements claiming personal knowlege of the website, which is not consistant with WP:CITE (you are, of course the exception to that statement).  Whilst I agree that guidelines need not be followed as strictly as rules, they cannot be completely ignored either.  Movementarian (Talk) 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The 5,000 test is analogous to "Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings" in WP:BIO. I don't know about the prices of CDs and porn movies or the relative sizes of the two industries but that doesn't sound like a bad test to me. She was also a finalist for a KSEX radio Listener's Choice award in 2004 but didn't win.--ThreeAnswers 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * keep please it is important so erasing it would not be good sorry if you disagree Yuckfoo 10:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. How is it important?  Movementarian (Talk) 12:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't know why this would be considered as "advertising". For Pete's sake, the last sentence of this article describes how the website has DECLINED in quality! How would that count as promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.19.36 (talk • contribs)
 * Anons can't vote.--ThreeAnswers 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as advert for non-notable porn site. Stifle 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB and possibly WP:V. Also reads a bit like advertisement. Zunaid 13:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Ideepthroat.com. It's notable enough for my standards. (Does this make me an inclusionist now?) —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep when I nominated it last time, it was an unwikified lump of text listed for speedy. It was still kept. Now this article has improved and I see no reasons why it should be deleted.  Grue   16:42, 19 January 2006 (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.