Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipornopedia


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipornopedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Excellent idea. Found not a single reliable sources (contemporary or in archives) to support notability (though of course, many web links exist). Request AfD delete. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a good idea to check this one out from the office. However, it apparently has not made news of any sort  which indicates that it's not notable.  Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not only aren't there reliable sources, but the web presence and Alexa rank (2,322,780) are pitiful by porn standards. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. By their own main page, it's a brand new site with only 82 pages. Pcap ping  18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage, but I do love that name!  If only hilarity was enough.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 08:37, 12 February 2010 (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.