Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insex

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 of the debate was to Keep the article. --Konstable 10:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insex

Non-Notable company. Disguised reference to two commercial web sites. Atom 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This might not be notable to you, but it actually is for a lot of people; Insex returns over 500,000 hits on Google. Plus this was by no means intended as advertisement, since the site doesn't even exist any more. If the two links to the successive websites are the problem, they could easily be deleted. -- Sloan21 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I counted ~21,000 refs for insex.com, and 1,420 refs for insex.org. Just looking up "insex" does give around ~586,000, but just a quick looks show most of them seem to have nothing to do with the company. I see references to intersex, to a band called insex, and to a 2006 movie called Insex. Perhaps with all of my years in the BDSM community I've managed to miss it. The article, especially minus the two web site references, is almost a stub. The only think that seems notable to me is that the claim is made that it was targeted by the Bush admninistration and put out of business. I wonder how many sex oriented web sites have gone out of business as a result of the aggressive policies of the Attorney Generals office? We can't feature all of those. Atom 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: 21,000 hits still seems a lot for a non-notable company; there is a featured article around here about a Australian netball player "Cynna Kydd" that would only return 2,000 refs. Anyway, the fact that it is almost a stub can't be a reason for deletion, since it was created merely one day ago. Plus it does have a certain worldwide notability, there is even an article on the Japanese Wikipedia for instance, ja:Insex.

The ja:insex artcile is a stub, with less than three lines associated with it, and no pictures. Not really notable. Atom 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Insex is definitely notable within the BDSM community. In fact, I searched for it some time ago and I was suprised that there was no article for it, while other prominent (mainstream) porn sites have pages on wikipedia. Also, the Japanese article speaks for itself, regarding notability. EnemyOfTheState 21:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Assuming that article is true, it clearly states notability. Dave 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep genuine website, the most notable website in its genre by far. No longer active so won't garner the same level of hits that it would two years ago. MLA 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• (Provisional) Weak delete. If the article's claims to notability are true, then the site is probably notable enough. But the only sources for these claims are what looks like the website owner's own FAQ and a lengthy Indymedia rant that is so incoherent I can't stand to read it for more than a few seconds at a time (and as such I can't establish whether it upholds these claims or not). Unless better reliable sources are added, this must be deleted as original research. I assume that the above "keep" voters are basing their statements on personal knowledge of the site, which isn't sufficient as a source in light of WP:RS. Sandstein 05:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I included three more sources, I hope that proves that the site actually exsited. Sloan21 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing to weak delete. The problem is not whether the website exists, but whether there are reliable sources to attest to its notability. I think "www.bondagenews.net" can't really be taken seriously, and the other two sources just mention it in passing, although they say it's "popular", whatever that may mean. Sandstein 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The mass media won't report about such a topic obviously. Not sure what sources you expect, NY Times? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.246.7.86 (talk • contribs).

Just reliable published sources, i.e. not just any website. That's the same rules that apply for every topic, mainstream or not. If there are no reliable sources, there's no article to be written. Sandstein 21:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely not an advertisement.--dannycas 16:28, 16 September 2006 (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.