Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Porn Terminator

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was No real consensus to delete. G13 will come into play eventually. kelapstick(bainuu) 12:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Porn Terminator


Submitted four times without any real improvement. Overloading the AfC review process with obviously no care to edit the page. Fails WP:NSOFT. And even if there was 'improvement' I doubt this could pass notability concerns. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I made one last edit (added a notable reference) few seconds before your review. I am not sure if you saw it. Please look into it again.  Thanks again for yoru time and consideration.99.225.134.195 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Ben
 * Comment I don't see and don't imagine many other would see an article from yourbrainonporn.com as being reliable or notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition, this is a unique resource and there is nothing like it on Wikipedia. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Ben
 * Comment Not sure what you are trying to imply, but uniqueness is not a qualifier for notability. Independent and reliable coverage is. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * CommentSo that I understand the process better, yourbainonporn.com, a non-commerical science based site only mentions one software in their article that is Porn Terminator. Isn't that a notable reference? Having a commendation from CNET in their review ... Isn't that sufficeint?  According to Wikipedia about CNET: "CNET is an American media website that publishes reviews, news, articles, blogs, podcasts and videos on technology and consumer electronics globally.   CNET is the highest-read technology news source on the Web, with over 200 million readers per month, being among the 200 most visited websites globally, as of 2015". Please look into this again.  I hope these two are notable references.  If CNET does not qualify? What does?  Thanks again for reconsidering this. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Ben


 * Comment One thing to add is that, CNET states in their review : We recommend this program to all users. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Ben


 * There are attempts being made to improve this draft. I think Keep ought to be the correct outcome here, and we should give the contributing editor time to fix the issues and resubmit until it is either acceptable or is proven to be a continuous fail. I appreciate the motivation to nominate this for deletion and would have done the same in the nominator's place. Now, though, it stands a chance, and should be granted that chance. Fiddle   Faddle  16:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator's concern is that the draft's subject fails our notability guidelines. If a subject is not notable, no amount of editing can remedy that. Mz7 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks for reconsidering the Porn Terminator page submission. The CNET review of Porn Terminator termed the software a 'powerful tool' and as stated in a prior comment, CNET recommends the software to all users - strong recommendation.  CNET is the authority/gold standard in technology/software reviews. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Ben
 * Comment Please understand CNET reviews can be sponsered and sometimes it can be impossible to tell when they are. This is why it alone can't show notability. Further, a good CNET review could open up the possibility for thousands of articles to be included that would otherwise fail WP:GNG. We need to see substantial coverage from preferably more than one source to show notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment CNET is regarded as the #1 technology review website ranking #152 on Alexa globally and #70 in the US.  The said, the request is to consider the CNET review (from July 2009) in conjunction with the other references including WikiHow and the non-profit website 'Your Brain On Porn'.   Wikihow (Alexa ranking 187 globally - 140 in the US) as far as I can tell do not usually list software in their articles.  99.225.134.195 (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Ben
 * Comment I have no idea what the Alexa ranking has to do with anything; that'd be like saying well EBAY is ranked high on Alexa so we should trust every product listing there. The discussion should revolve around wikipedia policy, please. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that you are cherry picking from my comments anything that may be viewed as negative in any way. At the same time, somehow ignoring what Wikipedia itself in its own articles have written about CNET and WikiHow.  Furthermore,  you rendered CNET (Owned by CBS) reviews as worthless and casted a doubt on it's integrity.  WikiHow's listing of our software is ignored.  To be fair, it is best to view Wikiepedia's own articles about both CNET and WikiHow before deeming them irrelevant in your comments. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Ben
 * Comment It should be noted no changes have been made on the page in a week. Paging you Fiddle   Faddle, so you're aware since you put it under review. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see nothing significant in that. At the end of this discussion a view will have been formed. Fiddle   Faddle  22:01, 30 July 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.