Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn for the Blind


 * 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   keep as a result of sources being found and added into the article. Wizardman 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Porn for the Blind

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Describes a prank website as if it were serious 08-15 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see anything particularly notable about it. More importantly, the website is a prank website, and doesn't deserve an article in an encyclopedia. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A hoax of a prank? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - hoax or otherwise, it's simply not notable. Arkyan 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to those above, 1) it is neither a hoax nor a prank; 2) what demonstrates notability besides coverage in major media sources? Which we have.  Ford MF (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hoax or not is probably irelevant (though whether it is one would warrant mention in the article). Problem is, it's not notable as a hoax OR a legit website, at least as far as has been proven. - Vianello (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a link to a Wired article about the web site. I'm curious as to why people are asserting the website is a prank? I'm not seeing evidence of that. (I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of notability, despite the Wired article, but that's a different issue.)-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The wired article establishes notability. Also, I know it is not definitive but there are more than 100000 hits on google for "porn for the blind". ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that almost any google search involving "porn" will return many, many hits. CrazyChemGuy (talk) (Contribs) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm sure this discussion has happened somewhere on here before. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep with notability established through the Wired and Nassauw Weekly articlesand possibly ABC. Although the ABC link doesn't work so should probably be deleted or fixed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Of course, if the article won't go beyond a stub then delete. -- .: Alex  :.  11:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator gave no valid reason for deletion – accusations of bad faith by an article's creator (such as "prank website") shouldn't be made without evidence – and the sources found show notability. Here are a couple more for good measure. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is no surprise that there is pornographic material available for the blind, and Phil Bridger has shown that there are reliable sources which document the subject as well.  (jarbarf) (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well covered in reliable sources.  Someone's just got to get off their duff and add them to the article already.  Ford MF (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The ABC link turned up in my google search on this article too but it may have timed out. There many hits for it on google. Artene50 (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - dead ABC link, barely any article content.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Barely any article content" is not even remotely a rationale for deletion.  It's hard to imagine anything more contrary to the spirit of a constantly improving Wikipedia.  The sources demonstrate notability for what's there, and "it could be better" is the reason we're all here, contributing; it is not a reason to delete.  Ford MF (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep nominator gives no valid reason for deletion. There also seem to be reliable sources for this article. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notability is established, both in the article and above. Frank  |  talk  01:05, 14 June 2008 (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.

Wizardman decided to keep the article 4 years ago due to 2 sources. Both sources have reliability issues for a few reasons. First, neither source refers to any actual owner of the site. They only a person named "Elmer" (although a WHOIS on the domain shows the owner...so again, not very reliable). Also, and both sources are very forward looking, written in 2008. However, their forward looking predictions never came true. There have not been any changes to pornfortheblind or any additional media sources contributing to the site's notability (usage/popularity/advancement) in the past 4 years. Since the sources are now 5 years old, one can see they are not reliable or accurate in their predictions. Porn for the blind is not registered as a non-profit organisation with the US government's official database. The site has not changed its copyright date or content since 2009. It is a dead hoax site (see above comments in the blue box by other users) that is not notable for any reason, but it has amazingly survived wikipedia deletion for many years. I think it is time for it to go (Hoax, not notable, and unreliable sources). Angelatomato (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)