Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixel Porn


 * 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 DELETE. Mo0 [ talk ] 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Pixel Porn
Non-notable concept that appears to be Webspam for one specific Web site. Only 737 Googles. Prodded but contested. FCYTravis 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & I don't see how the definition given separates this type of porn from any other on the internet... it's all pixels. Chris 07:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chairman S.  |  Talk  07:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong 08:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and User:Seqsea. J I P  | Talk 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain Article details subgenre of pornography and special use of term pixel porn as substantiated by public use online, in advertising, and print media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.159.139 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete "prodded but contested"? Didn't see that coming, no sir! Anyway, we don't have an article for calculator porn either (549 googles, but you bet people won't *ahem* talk about this!) and it's just as viable. Why this, then? No reason at all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain If Wiki becomes but a mirror of a google determination then what's the point? Content is unique, may need work but should persist. Bigpeter 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Google test is just one of the tools to measure the notability of subject, in this case, "do people actually use this term?" Wikipedia has articles on notable subjects, not words that next to no one uses! Wikipedia is not a dictionary either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Google cannot accurately predict or report the frequency of use for new terms or uprising notable events. Words that 'next to no one uses' is subjective and personally opinionated and irrelevant.  I'm not a member, but I am a wiki-community user and Big-brother Wikians should GUIDE and Instruct not censor or abuse rules. Especially rules that are themselves, guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.159.139 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, nn spam. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, consider merge with pornography. WikiPatriot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.65.66.208 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. Are anons allowed to participate in these discussions? No offense meant; I just thought I'd read somewhere that anons have no say in deletion discussions. Hbackman 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anons are allowed to participate in the discussion (if they can provide good arguments for or against), just that their votes aren't usually counted. This is more of a discussion than a vote - supposed to be a method of charting the user community consensus. This is especially seen if the established users are all voting "delete" and anons "keep". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the clarification. :) Hbackman 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is an interesting and unoffensive article. If the article itself is not kept, it should be merged with another artcile. I would not want to lose the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.217.10 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.