Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milf hunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milf hunter

I originally tagged this as a speedy, but the creator has subsequently claimed notability. I don't buy it; not every porn site is notable, and this article looks an awful lot like advertising. Firebug 03:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Count is currently 12 keeps, 13 deletes, 1 "cull" (cleanup?), with 1 of the keep votes being disputed, as well as 1 of the delete votes (unsigned) being disputed. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • "Delete"
    • This opens a 'pandora's box' for free advertisements on wikipedia for certain websites, if not deleted we should not allow a link to an external website.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.121.47 (talk • contribs) . This was this user's 9th edit, and first vote on an AFD. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

      • Actually it doesn't open up a pandora's box. The pandora's box is already wide open, as each and every porn article on Wikipedia has their own official site as a reference. Indeed, all of the sites are required to have something in order to meet WP:V. So unless Wikipedia makes a ruling to ban all porn sites, such a criticism can't work. But I am suggesting that a consensus be made on what to do with pornography related articles, so if you like you can contribute to that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep His site is one of the most popular on the net. And since making November (film) a featured article in time for the DVD isn't advertising, neither is this. Bangbus has a page, and there are plenty of articles on wikipedia less "important" than Milf hunter (1000 alexa ranking is high). Jedpressgrove 04:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question. What is Wikipedia's policy regarding porn sites? It's been estimated that about two-thirds of the Internet traffic is visiting porn sites, and many of the most-visited sites are hardcore in nature. B.Wind 04:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Objections to coverage of pornography topics simply based upon content are invalid, and are soundly rejected by most editors. However, that doesn't excuse pornography topics from the requirement of verifiability, although sometimes some editors try to distract the argument away from verifiability by trying to make the argument about content. Many people in the pornography industry are unverifiable by their own deliberate choice, to protect their identities because of the nature of what they do, and thus make themselves too secret for Wikipedia. Much of the information published about pornography actors and actresses, including (in many cases) their names, is simply made up. Some editors apply the Google Test to pornography topics, but, as explained at Wikipedia:Google Test, there is a whole sub-industry of the pornography industry that is devoted to gaming Google, and it is utterly useless as any sort of metric. The best tests are the WP:BIO tests for biographies and news coverage from sources that are independent of the subject, and the WP:WEB test for media coverage from sources that are independent of the subject. People such as Danni Ashe and Traci Lords satisfy such criteria. Uncle G 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as far as I have observed Wikipedia does not have articles for specific porn sites. Allowing one would just open the floodgates for thousands of porn advertisement "articles". Some guy. 04:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the same thing, but I'm not sure if there are specific guidelines regarding porn. Regardless, I'd vote delete as the article lacks references and doesn't truly show the notoriety of the person or the site: what separates this from the thousands of other porn sites? Better yet, let's hope that the Wikipedia policy reflects Some guy's and my concerns. B.Wind 04:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would imagine WP:WEB was designed to apply for porn sites as for all other sites. Capitalistroadster 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's about him, not the site. I just haven't added much to it yet. In fact, i should probably change the name of the article to Shawn Rees. By the way, according to Alexa.com: Traffic Rank for milfhunter.com: 1,126 Jedpressgrove 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the article is about the person, then it should be deleted as non-notable. And while the website meets the Alexa criteria of a 10000 ranking or better, it fails to contain information that makes it a useful work of reference, as per WP:WEB Kevin 04:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article appears to be about the actor who uses the nom de plume "Milf Hunter" (much as Adam Glasser calls himself "Seymore Butts") as opposed to the site. We certainly have articles on less notable porn stars. 23skidoo 04:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see him as non-notable, especially in certain 'communities.' Hmm, not sure how to put forward a delete nomination for Drew Curtis. And i will lengthen the article. My source went to sleep. And as soon as i made it it was up for deletion. Not much of a chance to actually add to it.Jedpressgrove 04:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What's stopping you from adding to it now? Furthermore: Your source went to sleep? Are you using a reliable source that readers can use to verify the article? Because from that comment it sounds like you are not, and that what you are writing is unverifiable. Please cite this source. Uncle G 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • My source is someone who knows a lot about Milf hunter. His knowledge does come from reliable sources that can be cited. Further information will have to be taken from him. Nice use of italics there, to express shock, perhaps disdain or revulsion. Jedpressgrove 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The onus is on you to cite the sources for your edits. It is impossible for readers to obtain information from this third party. Once again, please cite your sources. Uncle G 05:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe the proper name is Gonzo-Porn--64.12.116.200 06:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam advertising--MONGO 06:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a very well-known series of porn movies. See the article on reality porn. —Brim 07:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As remarked above, the site should be regarded as notable by WP:WEB, so I'd vote keep. However the article is still weak on content. First, the actor's name is misspelled (should be "Shawn" [1] [2]). Then, the article fails to provide some basic information about the site: When was it founded? (ca. Oct. 2001 according to this review Link may contain adult content) What is the company behind it? (The domain is registered to RK Netmedia, Inc.). What is the business model? (Subscriptions apparently, see the cited review) According to a poster in this forum Link may contain adult content, the site is part of a larger network of porn sites run by a company called "Nasty Dollars".) About the person, there is also a lack of basic information, such as the approximate age/birth date. regards, High on a tree 10:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Good research! Looking for independent reviews is exactly the way to address these subjects. Thank you. Uncle G 17:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Google search for link-site gets nine results, which is staggeringly low for a supposedly popular "pr0n" site. Article is POV (note words like "popular"), and if the site ain't notable the author surely is not! Redirect to American Pie if we absolutely must. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Your methodology is invalid, because Google does not behave the way you think it does. Google actually treats 'link:foo -site:foo' the same way as '"link foo" -site:foo", so your nine results are, in fact, all the sites contain the text "link foo"! If you do a link: search without the -site, you get over 100 results, the majority of which are from other sites. Alexa reports over 1000 incoming links. — Haeleth Talk 01:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a Web Guide. There is no indication whatever that this site is so overwhelmingly popular and novel as to have set a trend or accomplished anything particular that dozens or hundreds or thousands haven't. It's a porno site. There are tens of thousands of those. Geogre 15:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, verifiablilty problems.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Verifiability problems, seems like an ad, perhaps a little vanity... --DanielCD 19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree wth Just zis Guy, to extent article is about Shawn (or Shaun) Rees, subject is nn; to extent its about the website, its an ad FRS 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not opposed to the content (no accounting for taste) and I have voted to keep articles with notable pornographers (ie: dozens of published videos) but this pseudo-actor just doesn't make the cut. Self-publishing is vanity, this is no more noteworthy than a blog writer. Ifnord 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see how this is not a valid article. It is a very prominent subject within the adult entertainment industry and people need to learn about it and are interested in it.
    • Comment Whoever made the above vote, you have to sign it for it to count. --DanielCD 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it stands, the article is more about a person than anything, and by WP:BIO, I don't believe it makes it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The main source of the information is probably the website itself. People scrap together what reliable information they can from watching the videos and discuss and certify it on porn forums. Everything I've added is true. And how come bangbus can have an article but milf hunter can't? Milfhunter is higher on the Alexa scale and makes more money. Jedpressgrove 01:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, this sort of thing is insipid scum, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Agamemnon2 08:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It makes NO SENSE to have bangbus but not Milf hunter. Jedpressgrove 21:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per WP:WEB. Also the pornstars listed establish notability. Kappa 04:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Porn is notable.  Grue  20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is the most well known of all of the internet porn sites (other than ones like playboy etc that have their own magazines). They have their own feature films etc, and have something in the order of 100 other porn sites as spin offs or inspired by. Also remember that this was the first MILF porn site, something which became an actual category of porn sites, because it was so popular. When I was seeing some of the other porn sites in here, I was wondering if this one existed. But it should be renamed to MILF Hunter, to be accurate. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - just an addendum here. Bang bus, which is an existing less notable article, seems to be a spin off from MILF hunter... Also, you should note that the Alexa rank for porn sites is unrealistic, as there are more than 1 site for the exact same place. There are I believe 15 different web sites that are mirrors of MILF hunter, all with (slightly) different content. Therefore, its true Alexa ranking would be around 300th. And we are thinking of deleting the 300th most popular web site in the world? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I expanded hugely on the article. Note that Shawn Rees is *NOT* Milf Hunter. Milf Hunter refers to the phenomenon. Shawn Rees *occasionally* refers to himself as "The hunter" but almost never as "Milf Hunter". Whilst he is in *almost* every video (there are a few with just 2 girls going at it), it does not necessarily revolve around him. However, it should be noted that most of the other MILF copies (all based on this site) have a variety of men as the focus, and hence MILF Hunter will too if and when Shawn Rees gives up/gets too old/etc. It is therefore not a biography. And indeed, describing it purely as a web site is misleading. They have had feature films and videos and DVDs and all sorts of things. It is better described as a phenomenon. I am astounded that something like this was even nominated for deletion. As I said elsewhere, it is in fact harder for a porn site to meet the alexa ranking test because they have so many mirrors and visitors do not all go to the same web site. For it to make it by 10 times in spite of that makes this nomination quite silly. Of all internet porn sites that you could consider, this is the most notable. Check out some of the reviews I linked if you doubt it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article is half-way on the path to decency now and I see no reason it should take a detour. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 07:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Go have a look at the article now. I think it looks pretty good. By the way, once the AFD is finished, I will rename it to MILF Hunter, which is the correct capitalisation. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, this porn site keeps appearing a lot when surfing for porn, but I don't see what's so notable about it. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. Vicky Vette first became famous because of her appearance on MILF Hunter. See here: [3] Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - MILF Hunter is fairly famous in the reality porn world and was one of the first reality porn sites.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RayGordon (talk • contribs)

  • There is no rational reasons to delete this entry. keep Fairfis
    • Comment -previous comment is first edit by 212.254.172.207 (talk · contribs) -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Correction: First edit on English Wikipedia. He is a regular on German Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment - As whoever posted that comment was not logged in, we don't know for sure who it was. It was the first edit by a non-logged-in user on that IP address. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable porn site. -- JJay 19:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Cull. You may interpret that as delete or as "go through it with a meat cleaver and leave no more than 30-40% of the article intact", whichever is necessary to prevent a "no-consensus" close. Either way, this article is very adish, what with the "how-to" information in the history about the trial offer and previews, etc.; the rambling (I feel) section about the models; and the influence section that reads as a fan essay. And redlinks all over the place. Gah. The Literate Engineer 02:28, 11 December 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.