Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn for the Blind (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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Porn for the Blind
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a procedural nomination due to a contested PROD. Per request of nominator, article is about a non-notable website which cannot be verified. I am taking no opinion of this article as I am sending to AfD to assist nominating editor. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the Nassau Weekly and Wired articles already listed as sources, there is this. Jfire (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete There is no evidence this is a legitimate charity organization. A "whois" on the domain goes to a student's dorm room.  It is also not really notable...how many people use this site?  What makes it notable?   If it were so notable, why can't the owner even identify himself in the "Wired" article?  He uses a pseudonym.  No publications relating to blind individuals have mentioned this, and no porn publications have mentioned it either. The Nassau Weekly author was obviously gullible to believe this was real (and I've never even heard of Nassau Weekly - when did that become a standard for information?).  Also, maybe you should go to the website yourself and play a clip and see if you think it is arousing.  That's not "original research" - that's called common sense...ok...  Why would you defend something so much that is CLEARLY a joke website?  You honestly believe it's real?  Thanks. Angelatomato (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe issue here is not whether it is a joke site, but whether there is enough in the article to meet WP:WEB. Wired obviously is a reliable source as it is one of the biggest tech 'zines out there. The Nassau Weekly reference is debatable, as it is a student-run literary paper from Princeton, and I'm not 100% sure on it's reliability, as it appears to be more of an op-ed paper than a journalistic one. Keep in mind that we aren't debating whether this is a "joke" site or not, but whether this is notable enough of Wikipedia. As I said in my nomination, since I helped in filing the AfD, I'm going to abstain from giving my opinion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has enough independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThis is a growing industry in it's infancy from everything I've been able to research, which, admittedly, is not much.Critical Chris (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Totally ridiculous, but it does seem to meet WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep procedural nominations are a nonsense, an annoyance, if the user who applied the prod (incorrectly) wanted deletion then it's up to them to nominate. RMHED (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Subject seems to have just enough sources to meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Snow has fallen.  JBsupreme (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is this joke website so important for you to keep, but widely known people such as the Canadian actress and comedian Deven Green (article i started) was deleted IMMEDIATLY. Also, Alexyss Tylor (YouTube sensation with over 2 million views and several published books) was also deleted after I started her page.  People - can you get some perspective??  When I go to rewrite those 2 pages, I hope you all rush to my defense with keeping them on here since this page is about a billion times more ridiculous. Seriously, am I missing something that you all see?  I went to Harvard and walked by Dunster all the time on my way to the science center from the T stop - ok?  (wait - correction...that was staughton...i forgot... dunster is on the river)  Seriously.  The people doing this are full of crap...do you want me to personally email him?  Will that make you happy?  I assume he won't reply.  I looked on facebook and the owner is an '06 alum and in my network...so...how would that work for you?  i cannot believe I care this much over something so stupid, but it's really am amazing thing to see people defending this joke when I have not been able to create articles about notable people because a few random wikipedians thought they were "NN"...but a million other people know who they are.  Angelatomato (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, with very slight reservations. Although my previous position was that the site was a non-notable hoax, it seems that the sources linked above indicate notability. Whether or not the site's intentions are legit could still be an up-in-the-air issue, but I think it's also a moot one. Sorry it upsets you, Angelatomato, but I do my best to call it like I see it. If I saw legit sources in the articles you're frustrated about, I'd defend them, and if I didn't, I wouldn't. If a million people know of something, it theoretically shouldn't be hard to prove it. - Vianello (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification of position: Notable hoax/joke. - Vianello (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Vianello, what makes a notable hoax? The 2 articles (one of which is a school newspaper) don't call it a hoax.  They somehow thought it was real (or were having a slow news day).  Also, there is no traffic count for this website, and no hoax magazines or joke websites refer/link to it.  Using this standard, then there are probably 100,000 hoax websites that could be added to wikipedia.  Angelatomato (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response. I would say being covered by notable news agencies would make something (likelier to be) notable, and being a hoax makes something a hoax, and together they form a notable hoax. As for not being noted by major joke websites - those aren't generally taken to be reliable sources. However, it has been "covered" by SomethingAwful, a fairly major one. - Vianello (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Is not registered as a non-profit organisation with the US government's official database |Pub 78 if nothing else it shouldn't be noted as one. I'm going with a hoax here! And an extremely stupid/offensive one at that PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if it's not non-profit, I'm very, very close to deleting it as a hoax, regardless of the tally at the end of this AfD. No reliable sources beyond Wired (Metro is a rag, much like the national enquirer in the US), and Wired as a source isn't enough. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the consensus of this AfD, you would delete it as a hoax? And what policy would such a deletion be made under? However ridiculous the site/organization might seem, we have reliable sources that treat it as serious, and no reliable sources that claim it's a hoax. Overriding a consensus here would quickly, and quite rightly, be taken to DRV. Jfire (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd make it under the guide to deletion, which states Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). This article is most likely a hoax, and a rather blatant one at that. AFD is not a vote, and the closing administrator makes the final decision. Why are there no blind person magazines or websites mentioning this site? Why, in fact does the IRS not have any mention of it being a charity? Surely that's enough to suspect things. Have you listend to the clips on the site? They don't use 'naughty words', instead only describing the scene clinically. Let's take any one of the 'descriptions' (which are totally unchecked) - some are blank, and one seems to be a song. Some of them are of the infamous two girls one cup, and one of them is a description, by two college students, one of whom is laughing about the horse being red, about a video where two men receive anal sex from a horse. You cannot be seriously suggesting that this website, released during April Fool's week, is a real, 100% honest website. Try listening to it. I'd be surprised if even a horny blind person could get off to any of it. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yay!! Thank you - a sane person finally speaks. It is obviously a hoax website for all the issues you mentioned (and I mentioned) and you make a good point - the strength of the argument is what matters.  Angelatomato (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The problem here is that the article describe the website as a non-profit organization, yet we don't have any evidence of the organization. The website doesn't have any information or a name to contact, WHOIS list the registrant organization as "Patrick Swieskowski", and the sources doesn't provide any information about the individuals responsible for the website.


 * 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.