This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Artene50 (talk | contribs) at 09:19, 11 June 2008 (→Porn for the Blind). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:19, 11 June 2008 by Artene50 (talk | contribs) (→Porn for the Blind)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- Weak keep The ABC link turned up in my google search on this article too but it may have timed out. There many hits for it on google. Artene50 (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)