Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Adult industry


 * 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 delete.--Aervanath (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Adult industry
Suprefluous. Already a WikiProject Pornography.

Also created by a blocked self-promotional user. See this article on YNOT that he wrote about using wikipedia for their own purposes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The other project needs a major overhaul, and this title is likely better for the purpose (a page which asks if a person contributes "pornographic articles" needs a rewrite!) Perhaps it should be renamed and rewritten in parallel with any deletion here. Collect (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to the pornography WikiProject. Likely created by a user more interested in spruiking his products than in building an encyclopædia.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. WikiProject Pornography already exists, while this user's edits appear to be entirely self-promotional; if he'd like to participate in improving the coverage of this topic, he might find it more effective to join the existing project rather than creating a redundant one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep is a valid WikiProject and similar to other projects on Wikipedia.
 * 1. The project differs in that it offers an independent look at the Adult industry without overt commercialism of individual wikis. **The project is completely different from the more scientific sex wikiproject, itself more of a portal rather than a workingspace.   LaserVaZer
 * 2. The project is not in violation of namespace technology.
 * 3. The article is not part of an country-specific initiative.
 * 4. The project involves more than one participant.
 * 5. This WikiProject follows the precedent set by other projects allowed to flourish over time.
 * SIGNED (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC) — LaserVaZer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Duplicative, self-promotional, believe sockpuppetry is involved.Bevinbell (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I was having a think about this today, and I believe that this could be made into a legitimate umbrella-type WikiProject if it covered all of the adult industry, and not just a particular facet. The adult industry is much wider than just pornography, although that seems to be all that the project is focusing on right now.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment But does the WikiProject have any members other than the soon-to-be-blocked sockpuppeteer?   There's little use in a project with no members. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, well, lets not jump the gun here about blockings. I'm just pointing out there is potentially room for a "WikiProject Adult industry", it's just that this particular project at the moment doesn't seem to be going in that direction, and is instead completely redundant.  If the participants want to go that way though (and they don't get blocked for socking), this could be a possible route that is acceptable to the community.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment This might be a good task force on the WikiProject Pornography.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant. Resorting to wikilawyering.  Jd 027  (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant to WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force, with almost an identical focus. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant, created in really bad COI spirit. -- Ja Ga  talk 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually, better would be a merge with WikiProject Pornography and/or WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force. Tabercil (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The person and his many sockpuppets who created this is reponsible for the most disgraceful example of deception, sockpuppetry, COI, self-promotion and advertising that I have ever seen. Read the article cited by morbidthoughts, where the YNOT employee explains how he plans to create thousands of entries for non-notable adult sites purely to get free advertising. Note the link to the so called official blog of this wikiProject linking to his employers website. Note that the 2 supposed members of the project are one and the same person. Note that everything this user has created has been or shortly will be deleted for blatant advertising. "it offers an independent look at the Adult industry"- are you trying to be funny? "The adult industry is much wider than just pornography" - No, the "adult industry" is a psudenim for the pornography industry, used by the industry itself, and/or by people who thing porn is so disgusting they cant bring themselves to say the word. We have a very bad article about something called the "Sex industry", which is apparently porn plus sex toys, prostitution and the various forms of erotic dancing. These last three are covered by the sexology and sexuality wikiproject. The adult/porn industry falls within the scope of the porn project, and anyone who seeks to improve related articles should join it. However it goes without saying that LaserVaZer (or whatever hes calling himself right now) might not be too welcome. The porn wikiproject currently only has about 20 members, so we dont need to be creating any taskforces. After you have deleted this please if possible permanantly block the creators IP from ever aditing wiki again. Willy turner (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be shy... tell us what you really think...  Tabercil (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WikiProject Pornography, with which it is redundant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2009 (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.