Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiaerotica.com

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 delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asiaerotica.com and Asiaerotica.com Productions

[edit] discussion for deletion of Asiaerotica.com

Tagged as a speedy, but it doesn't meet any of the CSD. Deltabeignet 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. See also the other non-notable contributions by the same user. Dr Debug (Talk) 21:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per rationale at AfD for related article. --Kinu 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. --Rory096 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — This nomination can be merged with Asiaerotica.com Productions to make discussion easier. (I have no idea how, though). My vote stays the same, delete as with related AFD nom. Kareeser|^Talk! 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• delete alexa rank is 1,039,202. No evidence of notability citred in the article, nor in this debate. does not fulfill WP:WEB. DES ^(talk) 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion for deletion of Asiaerotica.com Productions

Delete Author deleted {{prod}} template. I can't reapply the template based on the rules of the new deletion system being tried out, so I'll put it here. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

there is obviously an atempt on the part of biased parties here to keep legitimate studios from being listed. Asiaerotica is a pioneer in its genere, and the attempt to delete information on the studio is tantamount to censorship of a REAL and VALID part of the online adult industry landscape. Wikipedia is not there to support the vested intrest of an intrenched few, it's about listing and giving information on the full diversity of the subject matter at hand. This is especially important with regard to groups like Asiaerotica which seek to "think different" about the adult industry. Obviously, some here deem that important to suppress. Who's profits are they trying to protect? And where is the central "authority" on what is a legitimate and valid "adult" endevour? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chinggism (talk • contribs).

• Delete. Non-notable. Dr Debug (Talk) 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. Also, Chinggism, you will probably get more people to listen to you if you don't go off accusing people of censoring and of about Wikipedia trying to "support the vested intrest of an intrenched few" JoshuaZ 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave as is Well it is beginning to look like the "porno" section on Wikipedia is a popularity contest. To delete valid information is censorship. And I dont mind incuring the ire of the powers here that be. It is obvious that information to supress information on a valid producer, no matter how "obscure" by whomever's standards is biased in my opinion. There is no accepted academic board on this topic. There are vested commercial intrests and those that seek to warm up to them. I feel that to delete the entry, espcially in this field is an attempt to limit imformation on what is going on in this genre to the same crap that is popped up in our faces at every turn on the web. No matter how many usernames you submit under.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chinggism (talk • contribs).

• Delete per nom, Dr_Debug, and JoshuaZ. Alexa rank: 1,039,202. <300 GHits. Not very widely known or considered significant in pornography circles. --Kinu 23:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and most of the above. James084 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Just because you think it is notable doesn't make it notable. Kareeser|^Talk! 00:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• delete deos not fulfill WP:WEB nor WP:CORP. Cites no sources. No evidence of notability presented in article or here. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion for deletion of both

• delete per noms of both

comment I merged the discussions per a suggestion by Kareeser J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment in this case the merge was probablty a poor idea -- just put them next to each other and cross-ref. DES ^(talk) 01:01, 7 February 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.