| Revision as of 20:33, 10 June 2008 edit(jarbarf) (talk | contribs)5,413 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:51, 10 June 2008 edit undoFordmadoxfraud (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers22,910 edits →Porn for the Blind: keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. The nominator gave no valid reason for deletion – accusations of bad faith by an article's creator (such as "prank website") ] – and the sources found show notability. Here are a for good measure. ] (]) 10:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. The nominator gave no valid reason for deletion – accusations of bad faith by an article's creator (such as "prank website") ] – and the sources found show notability. Here are a for good measure. ] (]) 10:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. It is no surprise that there is pornographic material available for the blind, and Phil Bridger has shown that there are reliable sources which document the subject as well. ] (]) 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. It is no surprise that there is pornographic material available for the blind, and Phil Bridger has shown that there are reliable sources which document the subject as well. ] (]) 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Well covered in reliable sources. Someone's just got to get off their duff and add them to the article already. ] (]) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:51, 10 June 2008
Porn for the Blind
- Porn for the Blind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Describes a prank website as if it were serious 08-15 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see anything particularly notable about it. More importantly, the website is a prank website, and doesn't deserve an article in an encyclopedia. Juliancolton 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A hoax of a prank? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - hoax or otherwise, it's simply not notable. Arkyan 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Hoax or not is probably irelevant (though whether it is one would warrant mention in the article). Problem is, it's not notable as a hoax OR a legit website, at least as far as has been proven. - Vianello (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've added a link to a Wired article about the web site. I'm curious as to why people are asserting the website is a prank? I'm not seeing evidence of that. (I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of notability, despite the Wired article, but that's a different issue.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The wired article establishes notability. Also, I know it is not definitive but there are more than 100000 hits on google for "porn for the blind". ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note that almost any google search involving "porn" will return many, many hits. CrazyChemGuy (talk) (Contribs) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm sure this discussion has happened somewhere on here before. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep with notability established through the Wired and Nassauw Weekly articlesand possibly ABC. Although the ABC link doesn't work so should probably be deleted or fixed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per above. Of course, if the article won't go beyond a stub then delete. --.:Alex:. 11:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The nominator gave no valid reason for deletion – accusations of bad faith by an article's creator (such as "prank website") shouldn't be made without evidence – and the sources found show notability. Here are a couple more for good measure. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It is no surprise that there is pornographic material available for the blind, and Phil Bridger has shown that there are reliable sources which document the subject as well. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Well covered in reliable sources. Someone's just got to get off their duff and add them to the article already. Ford MF (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)