Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyeurweb


 * 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. Under the assumption that late delete !voters considered Morbidthoughts's arguments Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Voyeurweb

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Limited coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm  (talk)  17:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * DELETE - Could not find references in google or news, nor results of any sort in newspaper search. On a separate note, the current article seems functionally unsourced. ogenstein (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you evaluate the existing citations in the current article?
 * 2. Lane, Frederick (2000). Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age. Routledge Books. ISBN 978-0415931038.
 * 4. Cone, Edward (October 2002). "The Naked Truth". Wired. Retrieved January 11, 2011.
 * 5. Geirland, John (October 26, 2010). "Nude amateur hour". Salon.com. Archived from the original on 2010-06-03. Retrieved January 11, 2011.
 * Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Salon piece is interesting but I'm not sure that it qualifies for reliable/notable. WP:RSP is noncommittal on the site but more importantly, the piece is a primary source which should not be used to determine notability. Wired meets RS but while its piece covers a range of subjects, the site's creator is handled similarly. The Spiegel piece mentions the site name three times but the references are trivial: Site is headquartered in Tampa; the reporter stopped getting emails from the operator; a photographer could have taken the photos from the site. Maybe at some point, the site operator decided that he didn't want to be notable as it might draw unwanted attention (which is raised in the Salon piece). Lehman's book mentions the site but in a minor way on a single page in the introduction of a 260 page book. We can't even tell what the purpose is other than to provide a basic example as this is the only page listed in the index. I looked at the Lehman article excerpt on MUSE and I'm not sure how to interpret this. The subject of the paper is not the site; rather, the site is used as the source of imagery. If you wrote a paper on athletics and used photographs of an amateur club to illustrate, would that make the club notable? As to Lane's book, it's completely out. The NY Times published a review of the book and it never mentions the site or its concept. So I went and looked at the book on google books and it doesn't actually carry a single reference to 'voyeurweb' although it does have a chapter titled 'voyeur viewing pleasure', which covers the history of pornography and technology, including the 'web'. Given the date of its publication, that's reasonable, but it is not a source for the site.
 * Of these, Salon is the most persuasive. I will say that there are a lot of pages with much worse coverage than this one (including the whole batch of AfD candidates) but unless I'm wrong about the Lehman paper or wrong about using primary sources to determine notability, I don't see myself changing my vote. ogenstein (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Article is simply not notable.The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The citations in the article along with these additional scholarly ones suggest that WP:GNG is satisfied. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NWEB & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:NORG / WP:NWEB. Sources presented at this AfD do not amount to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2019 (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.