Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wifey's World (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The result was   Snow Keep as well as Withdrawn. Here, the nominator changed their mind and per the arguments, it is best to SNOW close it. Thanks! (non-admin closure)  →TSU tp* 12:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wifey's World
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article is about not notable pornographic website which serves little more than an advertisement. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 10:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There has never been any credible evidence of significance, and the article has always served to promote rather than document the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Article on a web site, probably just to promote the website.   Falls short of establishing wp:notability although ability to do so might be possible. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: It seems like there are a plethora of articles from reliable sources that haven't been used in the article yet. Among them (including those currently in the article):         . I suppose that one could make an argument that a number of these sources are passing mentions, but Wired's profile of the site along with the plethora of other mentions mean that a quality article could easily be written if an editor put their mind to it. From reading the articles, this site appears to have been a leader (the first off the boat as it were) in amateur pornography. Nomader (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also in book sources: (although this one seems to be some weird kind of sex listing) but especially this one:  which gives a brief history of the website which calls it "one of the best known stories of amateurs who became entrepreneurs and ran their own sites". Nomader (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Site has historical importance, and there has been enough press coverage to meet WP:WEB. If you're concerned about the tone/promotional nature, then deletion is not the proper avenue: the subject is notable even if the article is flawed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep AfD is not cleanup, and the subject clearly passes WP:WEB and WP:GNG (it would be sufficient to read the previous AfDs). If there are a couple of sentences that sounds promotional this is just an editorial issue and does not require deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per Cavarrone. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per above. Roodog2k (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The AZ newspapers and the Wired article seem sufficient. This is one of the oldest continuous porn sites around, tossing this would be like tossing Jennicam or Carol Cox. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep Not sure how it works as I am the original nominator, but after seeing the arguments here and doing some research, this article just needs a major rewrite so it isn't written like an ad for the website.
 * ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 03:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unlike the great majority of sites of this sort, this one actually seems to have generated reliable, independent coverage. Not a terribly good article, and rather outdated, but those aren't reasons for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`
 * 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.