Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho Girl

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. W.marsh 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psycho Girl

Nonnotable amateur child porn video. Originally tagged with {{prod}} but tag removed by anon editor, so it's here now. Most Google hits are not relevant, and those that are have had any content removed because, well, it's child porn. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If WP:NOT anything, WP:NOT a place for pornographic transcripts. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 11:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not sure why anybody thought this belongs here. Incidently, I removed the transcript, but what's left, still needs to go. --Rob 12:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ugh. Redirect to Libby Hoeller or just Delete. PJM 12:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for mentioning that. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libby Hoeller --Rob 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Molto bene. PJM 03:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Why must people think just about any old weird stuff belongs on WP?--み使い Mitsukai 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This one is a mess. Incidentally according to the Libby Hoeller article, she was 21 or 22 when she made the video, so that doesn't make it child porn, thankfully. 23skidoo 14:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  Presuming it's Hoeller, that's correct - I read the article and assumed that it was the 8th-grader in New York. Either way, it doesn't belong here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Elfguy 14:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, not encyclopedic, non-verifiable, etc. - Liberatore(T) 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu 17:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability.--Isotope23 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Unencyclopædic (100 yr test? try 100 hour test!), not notable. Throw this out using 3-foot tongs! Avi 21:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete using anti-bioweapon protection.Blnguyen 00:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, still rather notable with the newspaper mention, even if it's not as famous as Libby Hoeller. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep borderline notability and Wikipedia is not censored.  Grue  13:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 188000 Google hits is actually enough to meet any criteria of notability.  Grue  07:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • When I click that link I only see 1440 links. Any porn wmv file will have that many hits from torrent tracker sites, web downloads, etc. - but I would argue that most are still below the bar of notability. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep JeffBurdges 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Icky, but I've heard about it. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. notable web phenomenon. Seen her mentioned in numerous messageboards for the past year and a half. --Madchester 19:39, 14 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.