Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn Tastes Good


 * 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. Neutralitytalk 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Porn Tastes Good
NN web site. 187 unique Google hits and a number of them don't refer to the web site. Delete -- howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 00:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. An Alexa rating over 1,500,000 combined with the Google results above indicates that this is just another website with relatively low readership and influenece. --Allen3 talk 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

So because something is not famous it cannot be listed? It is a legitimate website, it is in the proper category, and there are 100s of people who read it daily. What is the cutoff for how "popular" something has to be to be categorized here? Here are some examples of obscure people or things that are listed in Wikipedia: Tatjana Jambrisak Zombo.com Mysophilia

I'm not sure why all these articles are worthy of inclusion and this one is not. (unsigned comment by 67.185.234.168)


 * Well, things do have to be a bit famous to be in an encylopaedia (see Importance and Notability). Flapdragon 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * of the three articles noted I'd vote to delete the first two as vanity/advertisement of nn person or website and move the third to Wiktionary. B/C there exists articles that have not been deleted that are worse than the article presently up for vote is not enough reason to keep the article FRS 03:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, per nom jnothman talk 02:47,
 * Delete basically an ad--FRS 03:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's Remarkable that there are only 20 other articles now categorized as [], considering the thousands of sites on the web. Of the 20, at least two are also up for AfD, some are miscategorized, some are not about any single website (e.g. Internet pornography and two or three are legitimately "famous" or notable b/c they're (among) the largest or first in their genre or b/c of some other public controversy (e.g., Whitehouse.comFRS 21:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The "Two Wrongs don't make a right" argument. O.K. Look at the category page for Adult Entries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Adult_websites I believe the average Wikipedia user would find Porn Tastes Good just as interesting, and more importantly, RELEVANT, than some of those sites listed. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but part of the point of Wikipedia is for people to research what they are interested in, not just what is important or academic. I can't tell you how many interesting sites I've enjoyed on Wikipedia that I wasn't specifically looking for. - (unsigned comment by user at 67.185.234.168) - Dalbury 13:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PJM 03:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Each article should be considered on its own merits. In my view, there's no point arguing "Article X is on Wikipedia. My article is superior to Article X, therefore my article should be on Wikipedia too". Porn Tastes Good is the article in question here, no other. Based on the proposed inclusion criteria at WP:WEB, the Alexa rating provided by Allen3 shows that this website does not have the necessary readership to merit an article. On that count, I move to delete this article. Saberwyn 10:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Dalbury 13:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as there's no evidence of notability within the porn community. -Colin Kimbrell 15:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletion tastes good. --Optichan 20:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep You guys win, I accept the fact that my article is going to be deleted even though it has only been up for less than 24 hours, which really isn't enough time for any members of the general public to have their say in the matter. So much for letting the 99% of people who view Wikipedia and don't control the administrative side of it having a say in the matter; the Wikipedia Gods jumped on this site instantly and decided to destroy it before anyone else had a chance to judge its merits on this discussion page. My faith in Wikipedia is shattered... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.234.168 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 November 2005
 * I don't see how your faith could be "shattered" here. You have what may be a very good website for all I know.  But you don't have a website that deserves to go into an encyclopedia.  Would you expect Britannica to list you?  Are you writing to them daily?  Do you think that, in 100 years time, your website will be important enough to be in an encyclopedia?  Honestly?  Really, nice try, but no banana. And readers don't decide here: users do.  All the people who voted are users rather than just readers.  And as people who use the Wikipedia, in whatever way, we've come to a consensus that this article doesn't fit here.  Have you tried sending it to The Open Directory Project for listing in a web directory in the right category instead? That'll do your Google rank mare good than this place will, honestly. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 00:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, you win. I just thought Wikipedia was a little more democratic than most mainstream commercial sites. I don't understand the difference between a user and reader; I "Read" encylopedias, and "Use" them at the same time to research information. I don't see how the addition of my entry in any way hurts Wikipedia...the only people who are going to find it are people researching "Porn" or "Adult Sites" and my entry is a legitimate resource for those people as an example of a sex blog, a TGP, and a link list. Anyway, you all win, I've given my opinion. And no, I wouldn't expect Britanicca to list me...but by that criteria, the vast majority of entries in Wikipedia should be deleted.
 * Comment. Two things:  First, Wikipedia is more democratic than most sites, hence the review process in operation here.  You can't get much more democratic than an open vote with direct participation by the user base.  It may not be going the way that you'd like, but it's definitely democratic.  Second, the guideline most people use for notability is whether the article in question is considered notable within the overall heirarchy of such things.  Your article isn't garnering delete votes because it's a sex blog, it's garnering delete votes because (in the opinion of most people here) it's not notable within the overall community of adult websites.  It doesn't have an exceptionally large user base, it hasn't received notable amounts of coverage in the mainstream media, and it hasn't effected a fundamental change on the industry (as a site like JenniCam did, for example).  Though it looks like it won't be kept, I thank you for your contribution as it appears to have been entered with good intentions, and I wish you luck with the site. -Colin Kimbrell 16:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable. *drew 02:56, 4 November 2005 (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.