Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatfemnudist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. Denelson83 07:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fatfemnudist
Article is spam.
Claims:
According to Google's PageRank, her site gets more hits than any other BBW sites, and by a sizable margin. [1]
However, the PageRank is basically a measure of how many links you have to you. Links such as wikipedia.org, which counts a lot as a very big site.
PageRank does NOT measure hits, it measures the number and weight of inbound links. In addition, the supplied link shows very low page rank, although it is higher than the other articles in t hat directory. However, the directory makes no claim to be definitive for BBW sites.
In any case, a more real measure of site popularity is alexa.com, which shows it is the 587,155th site in the world http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.fatfemnudist.com
Until the 587,154 sites above it are listed, this article should be deleted. --unsigned listing and comments by User:87.74.12.83
- Excuse me, anonymous poster, but this article is NOT spam. If the reference to Google's PageRank offends you, I'll remove it now. As stated elsewhere, I think there's ample reason for inclusion, especially considering that Wikipedia already has pages devoted to such less-notable porn sites as Wifey's World and Ideepthroat. For that matter, Wikipedia is filled with entries for little-known musicians, artists, and even obscure role-playing game characters. At least fatfemnudist has been seen by many hundreds of thousands of people, and I don't think I'm required to have to make articles for the 587,154 sites you mentioned before doing this one. But give me time, and I will. wikipediatrix 02:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Note: Wikipediatrix is the article's author.
-
- If the delete votes win on this one, I'll nominate the other two sites for deletion as well. Reyk 04:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Wifey's world is many times better known. I have actually heard of wifey. It also has been seen by many times more people. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.wifeysworld.com cf. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.fatfemnudist.com I am not saying wifey's world deserves an entry (on balance I think not, an encyclopedia of minor porn sites is a bit odd), but fatfemnudist definitely doesn't. I actually find your claim that fatfemnudist has beenseen by hundreds of thousands of people (how do you know?) extremely difficult to believe, given that traffic graph. I also note that a google search for link:www.fatfemnudist.com only finds three links. 87.74.12.83 10:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons given by wikipediatrix. The idea of the site itself in no way floats my boat, but it is different, Wikipedia is not paper, and a subject's notability isn't always a criterion for deletion. --Fire Star 02:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per alexa rank. Also 104 unique Google hits (and not all of those even relevant) is quite low for an internet topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't much care one way or another about the topic, but Wikipedia is not a web guide, and several wrongs won't make a right. If we are carrying articles about minor websites with low significance, then they should be deleted, precisely because they will be cited as precedent and will give people the wrong idea of Wikipedia's intended scope. While this site may be of an uncommon type, it is not seemingly a trailblazer nor innovator. Geogre 03:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete As Geogre said, this would set a bad example. Reyk 04:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Per Geogre. Jasmol 04:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Firstly, I don't claim Wikipedia should be a web guide. Not all websites are notable. I would say this one IS a trailblazer and innovator for reasons I could expound upon if anyone really is listening. Secondly, the page is really just as much about the minor web-celebrity "fatfemnudist" herself, not just her site. This can be clarified and cleaned up if deemed necessary. Thirdly, fatfemnudist's site and her posts on amateur-porn message boards are well known to, well, those who know. If you're not a devotee of the amateur BBW pic-post world, then you may not have heard of her, but if you're not a marine biologist, then you probably haven't heard of Silicoflagellates either. I presume no one wants to delete the Silicoflagellates page, even though 99,999 people out of 100,000 neither know nor care that silicoflagellates are unicellular heterokonts whose only living genus has a golden brown chloroplast. wikipediatrix 04:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Note: Wikipediatrix is the article's author.
- Delete per Geogre. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as per Andrew. It is not notable enough. The other websites mentioned should probably be deleted as well. -- Kjkolb 08:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not sufficiently noteworthy to fulfill WP:V and WP:RS. Re WP:ISNOT paper: that it is not paper is a reason to accept articles that meet our article space policies but which are not usually carried by traditional encyclopedias owing to space issues. It is not a reason to accept articles that do not meet our policies. encephalon 08:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB - Alexa shows this is not significant, and not widely linked. The Google stat is almost certainly skewed by this article. No information will be lost to the world by deleting this, as anyone even remotely interested will be able to find the site without difficulty, and the content is largely self-evident. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as NN. I used to work with a guy that would love this site, but that doesn't make it notable enough for Wikipedia. - Dalbury (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn, ad, sorry WPtrix (great user name, btw) FRS 16:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There are a number of people who have gained a significant measure of notability in the field of amateur porn. There is no evidence to support the claims by the article's author that "fatfemnudist" is more notable than those people, and in fact I've just done a simple experiment. On a P2P program (which of course I just downloaded only for the purpose of this experiment of course of course) I type in "ideepthroat" and get 410 hits. I type in "Wifey's" and get 196 hits. I type in "Dawn's" (for Dawn's Place) and get 78 after subtracting five accidental hits. I type in "fatfemnudist" and get 0. Now, consider that Wifey's World, Dawn's Place, and Ideepthroat are all pay sites that don't want people sharing their stuff; fatfemnudist wants people sharing -- but no one is. It kind of dispels the claim that fatfemnudist is more notable than all of those. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Mr.Feldspar, surely you can understand that commercial sites like Wifey's are far more likely to generate hits than ffn's. What I think I haven't made clear is the fact that ffn's web-popularity is largely through her posts on adult pic-post sites and XXX message boards, almost none of which get fully crawled by search engines. I am curious to know who you mean when you say that there are notable people in the world of amateur porn. Let me know and I'll do articles on them too (By definition, professional paysites like Wifey's and Dawn's are not amateur porn in the true sense). I think the real dangerous precedent here is the "I've never heard of her, so she's not notable" mindset. Most people have never heard of MOST of what's in Wikipedia: that's why human beings need encyclopedias. I know ffn is very well-known in certain (shady) circles of the net because I've witnessed it firsthand for several years. She's no jennicam, of course, but by some people's criteria, apparently even jennicam doesn't warrant an entry here. Anyway, I won't berate the point, but I do sense an anti-porn bias here (as well as sockpuppetry). wikipediatrix 20:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Note: Wikipediatrix is the article's author.
- The fact that you choose to classify fatfemnudist as "true" amateur porn and Wifey's World as somehow not true amateur porn is really irrelevant; we're not asking "is this person notable within their league-determined competition category" but "is this person notable?" No evidence has been submitted that shows that fatfemnudist is notable; we only have the testimony of the article's author that she is. Be careful with your accusations, by the way; accusing people of being sockpuppets just because they say things you don't like is the sort of thing that damages the accuser much more than the accused. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wow. Did I accuse any specific person of being a sockpuppet? No. And if I did, it would be for far more tangible reasons than "just because they say things I don't like", so you need to plug up your own emitter of accusations, okay? Okay. (Also, you didn't answer my question before, asking you to be specific about your earlier comments. My question was not a rhetorical one.) Clearly certain folks are getting cranky and all up in my face now, so I suppose I will regard this article as a lost cause for the nonce. I had hoped for a higher level of discussion than this though. wikipediatrix 03:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- You don't want to just bandy around vague accusations of sockpuppetry. Levelling these claims, in effect, at everyone who voted delete is just as bad as accusing an specific individual. Did you mean me? Geogre perhaps? Maybe "Mr. Anonymous User"? Everyone who voted delete is the subject of your petty attack. Don't try to trivialize people or their opinions just because they don't agree with you. Reyk 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think your inflammatory and false-assumption-laden statement is far more uncalled-for than my brief and cryptic passing reference to sockpuppetry. If you really think I intended "everyone who voted delete" as the subject of my alleged "attack", you seriously might lack the reading comprehension skills necessary for Wikipedia. I said no such thing, nor did I even hint at it, so stop trying to put words in my mouth, Jack. And hey, I abandoned this dead horse already, why are you still flogging it? wikipediatrix 05:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- You don't want to just bandy around vague accusations of sockpuppetry. Levelling these claims, in effect, at everyone who voted delete is just as bad as accusing an specific individual. Did you mean me? Geogre perhaps? Maybe "Mr. Anonymous User"? Everyone who voted delete is the subject of your petty attack. Don't try to trivialize people or their opinions just because they don't agree with you. Reyk 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wow. Did I accuse any specific person of being a sockpuppet? No. And if I did, it would be for far more tangible reasons than "just because they say things I don't like", so you need to plug up your own emitter of accusations, okay? Okay. (Also, you didn't answer my question before, asking you to be specific about your earlier comments. My question was not a rhetorical one.) Clearly certain folks are getting cranky and all up in my face now, so I suppose I will regard this article as a lost cause for the nonce. I had hoped for a higher level of discussion than this though. wikipediatrix 03:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that you choose to classify fatfemnudist as "true" amateur porn and Wifey's World as somehow not true amateur porn is really irrelevant; we're not asking "is this person notable within their league-determined competition category" but "is this person notable?" No evidence has been submitted that shows that fatfemnudist is notable; we only have the testimony of the article's author that she is. Be careful with your accusations, by the way; accusing people of being sockpuppets just because they say things you don't like is the sort of thing that damages the accuser much more than the accused. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Mr.Feldspar, surely you can understand that commercial sites like Wifey's are far more likely to generate hits than ffn's. What I think I haven't made clear is the fact that ffn's web-popularity is largely through her posts on adult pic-post sites and XXX message boards, almost none of which get fully crawled by search engines. I am curious to know who you mean when you say that there are notable people in the world of amateur porn. Let me know and I'll do articles on them too (By definition, professional paysites like Wifey's and Dawn's are not amateur porn in the true sense). I think the real dangerous precedent here is the "I've never heard of her, so she's not notable" mindset. Most people have never heard of MOST of what's in Wikipedia: that's why human beings need encyclopedias. I know ffn is very well-known in certain (shady) circles of the net because I've witnessed it firsthand for several years. She's no jennicam, of course, but by some people's criteria, apparently even jennicam doesn't warrant an entry here. Anyway, I won't berate the point, but I do sense an anti-porn bias here (as well as sockpuppetry). wikipediatrix 20:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Note: Wikipediatrix is the article's author.
- Delete Badvertising at its purest. Not notable by any standard. Karmafist 03:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable website, no third-party sources, violation of NOR, no possibility of becoming encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising and POV. FFN's entry isn't sufficiently encyclopedic to justify keeping it. --Frekja 11:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - if you actually looked at the web site, it is basically a personal homepage. This person called Linda wrote it, and all of the pictures are of herself. Yes, they are pornographic pictures, but that doesn't stop it from being a homepage. She doesn't have a single picture of anyone other than herself in there. Its free, yes, for a reason. Whilst there have been girls who have made pornographic homepages and then charged people for entry - and also for example famous models (and porn stars) who have had free pornographic web sites, this is not one of them. This classifies comfortably as a vanity page. Perhaps the article shouldn't have been deleted without a discussion, but it should have been deleted just the same. Unless you're is Linda or you think that Linda is hot, I don't see why you'd want this in the encyclopaedia full stop.203.122.218.47 16:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity. Zunaid 07:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Spam. Carina22 15:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Spamity? Calton | Talk 05:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ads, NN. *drew 13:19, 16 November 2005 (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.
