Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiporn

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. Shanel ^§ 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiporn

Seems to be an actual Wiki, so doesn't fit the CSD of nonsense, sending it to AfD. Probably needs to be deleted anyway.

• Delete - pn. - FrancisTyers 11:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to prod this as it isn't patent nonsense. It doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB either. Capitalistroadster 11:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sandy 11:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. PJM 11:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Wiki. --Terence Ong 12:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:WEB. Mystache 14:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. RGTraynor 15:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Englishgirls. Please see the discussion at Talk:Wikiporn and add any contributions before considering deletion. Englishgirls--Englishgirls 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: saying "per (foo)" means you agree with the comments that (foo) made and incorporate them by reference. You can't use yourself there, because you haven't made any comments to incorporate. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, websites are not notable and term 'wikiporn' has 156 Google hits. -- Mithent 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• See my comments on that talk page. No vote, pending evidence of coverage by reliable secondary sources. Leaning toward delete as just another niche interest whose influence hasn't yet become widespread. Barno 00:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "...excluding those, there are 0 pages that are probably legitimate content pages. ... There have been a total of 497 page views, and 24 page edits since the wiki was setup. ... There are 3 registered users, of which 1 (or 33.33%) are administrators." [1] (MediaWiki is a handy thing, no?) In other words, too new site to judge any notability yet, all too new! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment per Englishgirls. So you are saying we should delete it because "too new site to judge any notability yet". I feel you have missed the point. The article is not about any specific web site it is about "WikiPorn". I find it remarkable that one is excluded from Wikipedia because a concept is "too new" despite the fact the are several sources and web sites dedicated to it. Englishgirls--Englishgirls 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • First, please do not vote twice. Second, "Do not delete" is not a vote, it's a Mark of a Newbie - please read the AfD instructions. Third, "per <your own name>" is a highly unorthodox vote to say the least. Fourth, please sign your posts properly (use ~~~~ or use the signature button on the toolbar).
    Fifth, yes, we actually do delete sites that are brand new and have not proven to be of bigger consequences. Heck, we delete older sites that have not proven to be of bigger consequences. And if your wiki says it has approximately zero articles and three users, I'd say it's rather damning evidence that the site isn't very notable yet, regardless of what hard criteria we have. We might be inclined to keep an article on a new site if it's made by some respected established party and there's some proof that it will stick around and be notable some day (think of ajaxWrite, which was quickly AfD'd). But this site doesn't appear to have any of these merits yet. Also see our notability criteria for websites - it clearly fails these. They're tough rules, but they do make sure we will see the forest for the trees.
    While you undoubtedly have noble efforts to defend other small and new sites, this particular AfD is about this particular site.
    Just for rhetorical comparison, I can take a look at my own MediaWiki installation (not a public wiki yet): 109 pages, 851 views, and 476 edits, most of these by myself - and I'd still say my own wiki is too small and too obscure, in epic proportions, to be included. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment per Englishgirls. I have taken the liberty to edit this page so i have changed it as per your instructions. Englishgirls--Englishgirls 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. http://www.wikiporn.org is actually quite a popular wiki and a real, valid and new concept is being developed and explored. Wikipedia = open information, wikiporn = ? jjj_uk
  • Not with an Alexa rank over one million it's not. That aside, neither original research (WP:NOR) nor neologisms (WP:NEO) qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. RGTraynor 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • jjj_uk has edited Wikipedia three times, all to this AfD, and call me paranoid but seeing them sign the article exact same way as "Barry" (Englishgirls) - compare how both eschew the signature button and use same format, [[User:Englishgirls | Barry]] and [[User:jjj_uk| jjj_uk ]] - makes me slightly suspicious. Sockpuppetry, I guess? Can anyone confirm? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's complete rubbish Wwwolf :-) How can I prove that I am a distinct user to your satisfaction? Englishgirls posted on wikiporn and by doing this drew my attention to this debate. I'll update Mediawiki when I have time but less snottiness till then please! --Jjj uk 19:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Okay, so this article is about two wikis. The other one has following depressing statistics: 225 pages, 87499 page views, 1943 page edits, 69 registered users, and older-than-heaven MediaWiki version. slightly better, but in my opinion, this still isn't particularly amazing! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Does seem to meet criteria to have a Wikipedia article, however so do many other porn sites not considered worthy of Wikipedia articles. Beno1000 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can assure you all that whoever jjj_uk is, it is nothing to do with me. Judging by the initials and the reference to wikiporn.org I would suspect it is Jason Johns from London who hosts that site. We are not involved or in cohesion together in any way. I can understand your suspicions of a newbie (weren't we all at some point) however, i have been honest and open to keep this article going. I am not a dishonest person. Also, let me reiterate a point. The article is not about any particular web site. It is about "WikiPorn" --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, if you say so. Just sounded suspicious, that's all, forgive me if I went a bit overboard too early, but please also understand that sockpuppetry is a real problem in AfDs.
    Anyway, if this isn't about a specific site, there's still one thing to be decided: Is this supposed to be an article about the two currently existing wikis titled "WikiPorn", or a generic article about discussing use of wikis in documenting pornography? If latter, the term "WikiPorn" is a neologism, and the article has to be moved to some more descriptive title (and I'm not sure if we need this, as our current list of wikis does include the category, or did when I last checked it). If it is an article about wikis titled "WikiPorn", we have two sites are only marginally notable and are better off merged somewhere else, and I believe wikiindex.com is better for that sort of stuff. And I still stand by either deleting the article, or redirecting without merge, because frankly, the current article is better off completely rewritten in any case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 10:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment On the point of neologisms/"too new", I note that Wiki is included in Wikipedia. "Here a wiki (IPA: [ˈwiː.kiː] <wee-kee> or [ˈwɪ.kiː] <wick-ey>[1]) is a type of website that allows users to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit all content, very quickly and easily, sometimes without the need for registration."

Surely "wiki" in this context is a mere blip even in terms of modern history. Pornography or "porn" for short is an ancient concept. So is the problem that "Wikiporn" is the conjuction of these two words? Even if the article is deleted I would still be interested to know your opinions. "The current article is better off completely rewritten in any case" I totally agree. I was hoping for input from other Wikipedians which is what the ethic of Wikipedia is about. I will take the article on board as my "baby" and improve it over time so that it is more educational than it currently stands. "A generic article about discussing use of wikis in documenting pornography?". I must say that I do like that statement, I couldn't have put it better myself. Yes I am hoping that it is exactly that. Several people have said to me "what's a neologism?" or "what is a wikiporn?". It gives me a great buzz to say "look it up on Wikipedia". --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The problem is two-fold. If the article is assessed on the notability of its websites, it fails: the more heavily trafficked one of the two doesn't break one million on the Alexa meter, which is seriously insignificant (WP:WEB). If on the "concept" of wikiporn, the name is a neologism (WP:NEO) and the essay original research (WP:OR). If you are genuinely looking for the input of other Wikipedians on this article, our consensus seems to be that until and unless these websites gain enough traffic and outside notice to become notable, or the concept gains widespread and verifiable (WP:V) media and/or academic attention, this subject does not qualify for an article. I appreciate that you get a kick out of having people see your article on Wikipedia, but I hope you understand that Wikipedia doesn't exist for that purpose. RGTraynor 10:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK i give up. Thank you for letting me have my say but there is not much more i can add. I will leave it in your hands to be deleted or not. --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB (or as neologism if we're to buy into the author's insistance that this isn't about a particular website) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Additionally, it's a copyvio, because Wikiindex, which is where the page was taken from, is a cc-by-sa licence. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought, until I noted the article didn't actually have anything remotely at all to do with Wikiindex article's contents, even when it said it was retrieved from there... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Wikiporn, the free pornography that anybody can edit? --Rory096 20:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I find this amazing. I am now being accused of "possible copyright infringement" for something I wrote. Are you just having a laugh at my expense? --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It's not a copyright infringement like most we have here, but Wikiindex is released under a Creative Commons license, not a GFDL license like we have, so we can't take it here. You have to say that you want to re-release it under the GFDL. Anyway, I'm not the one who tagged it. --Rory096 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa ranking is around 1.1mil. — TheKMan^talk 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - So give me some time and show some respect that i am a newbie.. I will conform to all your standards but please have some more patience. In my humble opinion i am an intelligent person who can only contribute for the good of Wikipedia. --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well, remember - please don't take AfDs personally. We're debating the merits of articles, not the people who write them. We have near-infinite patience with people, but very little patience with bad articles. =) AfDs happen to best of us. I assure nothing bad will happen to you personally if the article is deleted (though someone may point you toward the newbie documentation and ask you to read it). I suggest reading other articles to see how they're laid out and what kind of information goes to a good article; also read some of the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, to further understand how the stuff works. I hope this AfD has been an educational experience. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:38, 2 May 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.