Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informed Consent (website) (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. I'm forced to agree with starblind in this one. You would certainly think that this site would be notable and perhaps it is in a real world sense. I almost closed this "no consensus" but unfortunately, Colapeninsula's analysis of the sources used to attempt to demonstrate notability has pushed this to the "delete" side. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Informed Consent (website)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page does not obviously meet notability requirements; I think it fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Only two references are not self references. One is a mention in an article not about the article's subject and the other is used to reference information which does not indicate notability of the article's subject.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral it certainly appears notable, given the large member count and how decisive the previous AFD was. That said, the sourcing IS very poor, and I can't find much better either (there's this, but it isn't much) and may not pass WP:WEB.  I'd probably be leaning toward delete if better sources can't be found by the end of AFD. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Haven't found any sources that help article pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB. How did all of those WP:ILIKEIT arguments in the previous AfD slip by and result in a keep? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, secondary source coverage including those cited in prior AFD. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * May I request that you point to a source which establishes the notability of the subject? I am not seeing secondary source coverage in the previous RfD. I do see secondary sources listing this site among others, but those sources seem to not be about this article's subject. What are you seeing?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG, as Cirt points out. Also, The Rough Guide to Sex describes the website as "The UK's leading online BDSM society". —Tom Morris (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Same request as Bluerasberry above. Please point to the sources that establish said notability, as there is no visible secondary source coverage from the previous AfD.. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources in the earlier AfD do not establish notability. The Dubliner and Beckmann article both simply include the site's name and URI in a list of similar websites, and the Rough Guide to Sex lists it in a directory-style format with a one-sentence summary. Previous AfD keeps seemed to be mainly supported by fans of the website, but with an alexa.com ranking of 101,555 it's not exactly the most popular site on the web. It's a shame to delete this article on an helpful and inclusive sex-related site when there are 1000s of uninformative articles about porn stars that meet WP guidelines, but that's the way policy goes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2012 (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.