Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xxxchurch

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 Xxxdelete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:39, Feb. 5, 2006

[edit] Xxxchurch

Article on a porn site. This one happens to be a Christian porn site, which is, to say the least, different. Encyclopedic, though? I doubt it. -R. fiend 04:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think the difference is enough to keep it around for a while to let it evolve and grow.65.189.26.187 04:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• You misread, or haven't visited the site yet. It's a Christian anti-porn site. Delete nonetheless, non-notable. Haha, a porn-free internet, what will they come up with next? - CorbinSimpson 04:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn site. Makemi 06:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Corbin's right, it's anti-porn [1], which makes it pretty unremarkable for a Christian thing; Alexa rank doesn't help it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some work. I did see on a national news story on this (sorry, don't remember the exact show nor date) sometime during 2005 in the USA about this site. It has been around since Jun 2001.
  • Sort of remembering seeing something about something on some sort of news program at some point is not a verifiable source. And even if you could supply specifics, merely being mentioned once on a news program is usually insufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia, or else I know a few certain puppies that would have their own articles. -R. fiend 06:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Vote (Comment). Site gets 4 mentions on Google News, although 2 results are from Christian newspapers and 1 is under subscription. I also recall seeing it on some US Christian talk show that for some reason gets shown at about 3am in Australia. Also note that article as it stands does not correctly describe the site - to my knowledge it is meant to look like a porn site to attract "porn addicts", who are then supposed to see the light of God and give up their sinful ways. Confusing Manifestation 11:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per R firned's reasoning. Proto t c 12:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a devious trick. I thought Christians were above such things. I guess not. JIP | Talk 12:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable website. --Terence Ong (Chinese New Year greetings) 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Vote (Comment) maybe the organization is more notable than its website and the article should be rewritten as such 17:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup It's real and notable, between 87,000 google hits and coverage on The Daily Show, along with a number of print/online news stories. The article needs work but the site is worth an article. Night Gyr 18:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, even if the article is fixed to actually be factual. Now if it really was a christian porn site, that would be a different thing entirely from a notability standpoint. --Isotope23 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. I like the "Jesus loves porn stars" t-shirts though! --kingboyk 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the noble campaign to make an anti-porn-free Internet. --Agamemnon2 08:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to Xxxchurch.com. Big-time news coverage, for them and their event: the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader[2], the Spokane Spokesman Review[3], the Sacramento News and Review[4], CNN[5], the Toledo Blade[6], the Hartford Advocate[7], WTOL (Toledo's CBS affiliate)[8], the Winston-Salem Journal[9], the Cincinnati Enquirer[10], the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier[11], the Orange County Register(syndicated from the Christian Science Monitor)[12], etc. There are more, too, but I think the point is made.-Colin Kimbrell 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Agamemnon. Carlossuarez46 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: OK, evidently people want more. The "Media" page on the "National Porn Sunday" site[13] includes links to clips from segments on not only CNN, but also ABC World News Tonight, A Current Affair, and Geraldo at Large, as well as six local news broadcasts in Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee. It also links to about a half-dozen other newspaper articles, and there are a few more of those on Google that aren't listed if you want to dig. Honestly, this has been covered more extensively than about 90% of the stuff on here. I don't know what else y'all could want. -Colin Kimbrell 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Alexa ranking is 67,778. The top-links on Google returned for "xxxchurch" number roughly around 87,000. Most of those are small blogs talking about how XXXChurch is not really a site of notability. Keep also in mind that WP:WEB's criterion for inclusion relating to press requires that "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" be directly linked under the references or external links section of the article. - CorbinSimpson 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: So we add the CNN transcript and the ABC transcript and a few of the bigger papers like the CSM to the references section and cite them in the article. Then everybody's happy, no?-Colin Kimbrell

Comment: Eh, I don't think this is one of those issues where everybody walks away happy. Nonetheless, the AfD as it stands makes a good case. The article is currently a waste of HD space. If by some miracle the article were to undergo an amazing transformation wherein it was wikified, formatted, neutral, accurate, cited, and squeaky clean, I might consider changing my vote. Mostly, I'm against a site that might not be universally considered notable as having an article. My point of view would likely be drastically different if the article were about the organization rather than the website...anyways, if the article shows marked improvement before the discussion closes, I will reconsider my vote, which I think is about as happy everyone gets. - CorbinSimpson 09:21, 2 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.