Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn for the Blind (3rd 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Porn for the Blind
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It has been 4-5 years since it was last nominated for deletion. Other editors agreed back then that it was a joke and poorly sourced (2 articles in 2008-9 only & nothing since then). The sources never attempted to verify this was a legitimate site, and only a pseudonym is provided to the sources, making their reliability questionable.). This is not listed in any charity database.  The website has not been updated since 2009 (see copyright on site). The Whois traces to a student's dorm room.  If you play some of the mp3 files of the supposed "porn" for the blind, you'll hear 2 guys laughing in the background 1/2 the time.  I do not know / understand how this survived as long as it has.  There are some useful old comments from the AFD from 4 years ago (it does not conform to WP:WEB or WP:NN) - please click the links to the right to read more.  Nothing has changed since then, and no new sources can be found backing them up as any notable (or legitimate)website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 December 2012
 * Comment. This would probably be hard to speedy as a hoax. It sounds like the kind of thing that was clearly created as a gag website (no sexual pun intended), which means that the website is not real as far as its intended purpose as a sex website for blind people. However the website itself does/did exist as a joke website, so it's not really a hoax because it did exist in some format. It just isn't what the article is currently trying to describe. Of course this doesn't mean that it should exist on Wikipedia, just that AfD is probably the best way to go about talking about whether or not this passes notability guidelines. One thing for incoming editors to take into consideration is that if the site only got initial attention that talks about it as if it's a legitimate site, that's probably a good sign that it doesn't have any lasting notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This didn't show up properly on the AfD, so I did some tweaking to where this would show up properly. Cheers!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Further comment: This contained some text and delete arguments from the 2009 AfD, so I'm removing those comments to avoid confusion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional. I'm coming up with search results for a Canadian artist that is creating erotic art in braille that is unrelated to the website, so there will be some false positives here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is the Canadian artist and also there is an Irish rock band with the same name. So, thanks for pointing out the potential false positives for other editors. The main issues are pointed out well on the 2nd nomination...now, with the passag of 4 years we can see that some of the editors during that vote were wrong about a few things.  Thanks for fixing the AFD - I thought I did it right - by pasting the script in the edit summary (after like 3 tries - was embarrassed already)  but I guess it was still messed up.Angelatomato (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. There is nothing out there that shows 100% that this is either real or fake. It looks like enough people had taken the site seriously when it was initially announced to where even if it is a joke website, some uploaded clips without the intention of actually providing audio narration for blind people while others clearly meant for the clips to be used for that purpose. However here's the big issue: despite claims that the website was launched back in 2006/2007, the site really only gained notice in 2008 when it was first announced to exist. Other than one or two brief articles that came out a short period of time later (as in 1 paragraph type articles), the website has attracted no further attention. I also notice that its Alexa rank is rather low for any type of website, but especially a pornography website, although I know that this isn't in itself a reason to delete. Why I mention that is because it looks like the site got a brief spate of articles in 2008 that announced it exists and was then largely ignored by the world in general. There is this Vice article (unsure if this is just a random contributor or a staff writer, though) and this German website, but neither really seem to suggest that they're the type of long term coverage that would show that this website passes WP:WEB. If there were a little more than this could potentially pass, but right now there just isn't enough for me to really think it passes notability guidelines. It's close, but not close enough.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Let this turkey die. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:30, 13 December 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.