Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Sex In Russia


 * 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. King of ♥   ♦   ♣   ♠  04:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Real Sex In Russia
Pure spam. Artw 02:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom--Jusjih 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Yanksox 02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Coredesat 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Terence Ong (talk 07:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete this spam! Max S em 07:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unfortunately, spam is not in the speedy delete criteria. -- Kjkolb 09:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know:( Max S em 10:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete same author is trying to spamm this link in another article that is up for deletion here Russian porn. Trm3 10:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The author's contributions show that he/she has also spammed Reality porn and European pornography. Invitatious 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Spam has been a speedy criterion, unless things have changed ("an article consisting solely of an external link").  However, this article is a clear delete in any case, as there is a documentary/pornography series called Real Sex that sells its product to HBO, and this article title would be about that show's experiences in Russia.  It ain't.  Geogre 12:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom B.ellis 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, spamtastic. Grand  master  ka  03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Oh, Dear Lord, whatwikipediaisnotlinkspamadvertisment vanispamcruftwikipediaisnotfreewebspace godicantbelievepornowebsitestakethemselvessoseriously getitoutofthisencyclopedia. - Richardcavell 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Twittenham 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is claimed this was one of the largest increasing Alex ranking during the past few months. If this is so perhaps we should not be quite so quick to delete it? Plus it seems to have an excellent start to an article there. Also I'd like to know under exactly what criteria is this being put up for deletion. I'd like this stated exactly, rather than just generically refered to it breaking "something". Also evidence of it breaking whatever this is. Mathmo 06:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see, it doesn't fit notability guidelines in the slightest bit, and also it's a complete violation of WP:NOT, mainly spam, advert, and promotion. Yanksox (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; spamvertising. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. skorpion 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A large increase in visitors is common wiht newish sites. It does not make a site notable by itself. Ace of Sevens 14:39, 18 June 2006 (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.