Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Erotic Network


 * 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 - cleaned up since nomination - Yomangani talk 11:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Erotic Network
reads like an ad, not adequately sourced or notable DanielCD 04:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Author tidied the language a bit and it's looking better, but would still like other opinions. --DanielCD 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't assert notability. MER-C 05:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete spamtastic. Danny Lilithborne 06:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How many markets is this available in? If it is available in a lot of markets, it is probably worth keeping. Article still needs work, although perhaps there isn't much to say about 7 channels of pant pant. --Brianyoumans 11:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no idea why anyone would pay money for porn these days when there's an infinite amount of it for free online, but this seems notable. It's carried on Dish network, and thus available to at least 12 million people. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew Lenahan Cynical 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there is an actual indication that it meets WP:CORP guidelines other than the number of people that could subscribe to it (but may or may not). Leuko 14:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It does seem to meet the media-coverage requirement of WP:CORP. Here is one story, for example, and here is another from the Washinton Post.  It even seems to have figured into the Scott Peterson trial, of all things. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then weak keep if it can be written more like an encyclopedia article, and less like an advertisement. Leuko 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP! I am the author of this article that has recieved so much attention for what reason I know not?! I have edited the article several times and feel that the present version is not like the original.  For those that wish to delete it, why don't you edit it, change things to your liking, instead of just saying 'delete it'??  That's cheap, take the easy way out why don't you?!The whole point of this site (from my understanding) is that it is a public project, anyone can contribute in whatever way they feel would be useful.  So step up and contribute- change what you don't like, make it into a better article than it currently is.  I have seen articles on this site that don't qualify as articles, they are only 5-10 words, a sentence at most but they are still up last time I checked.  Why are other articles about Porn channels still up and this one is slated for deletion??  I am still awaiting an answer on that one but so far nothing but silence.  Based on the subject matter (adult channel) I have done what I can with the article, you don't like it- fine then delete it.  It descibes a PPV service that is available in the United States, according to the corporate site, to over 100 million households.  I mentioned that it consists of 7 channels, 3 are on Dish Network and 2 were just added to DirecTV.  It may also be available on cable but I have no information on that.  It is one of 2 major adult PPV services in the U.S., the other being Playboy/Spice Network.  I think that makes it deserving of being on the site but I have no final say so my opinion means nothing.  As a result of this current action with this article, I am seriously re-considering my future contributions to this site.  It seems I don't know how to write a good article, just spam, so no point in writing anything else.  I will no longer write any more articles and may just stop contributing all together.  It seems that this site like alot of other sites on the net is now 'controlled', so much for free speech.  I guess the internet as the last bastion of freedom is slowly coming to an end.  Keep it or delete it, its up to you, I have said my piece.HeMan5 19:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: HeMan5, people aren't personally against you or the article. Wikipedia has minimum standards for articles, which is why this Articles for Deletion section exists. Discussion deletion is one option for handling an article that doesn't meet those standards. We hope htat you will learn a bit more about what is acceptable on Wikipedia and why. But Wikipedia isn't a "bastion of freedom" for anyone to write anything, it is intended to be a usable encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as per HeMan5 Igbogirl 18:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just barely keep as this is a nationally available cable channel. The post-Danny version of the article is acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I agree. Article as it stands meets minimum standards and doesn't read so much like SPAM anymore. I'd like to see more content though, if possible. --DanielCD 00:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There's enough cruft floating around that there's no sense bouncing something like this. Needs a lot of cleanup and expansion though - marking it as such would not be a bad idea. Lord Rasputin 21:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per DanielCD. Now has more encyclopedic tone. FloNight 18:00, 12 October 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.