Talk:MET ART

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] REVIEWS AND EXAMPLES

I added some links today. First was a link to adultreviews.net which contains a review of met art. adultreviews.net is one of the oldest and largest review sites and the content of the review is relevant. I also added 3 links to sites with samples. Nationx May 30, 2007

[edit] SPAM

Added spam tag, in case article survives AFD. Still would need to be cleaned-up.Roodog2k 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed the tag after eliminating what I judged was spam. Right now there is still next to no content, but I don't feel anything in it can be considered spam. If you feel like it still deserves a spam tag, please let me know which part gives you that impression here if possible, and I will attempt to clean it up too.Beltz 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EL

To the person who deleted my external link. Did you visit the link? Please answer honestly. Certainly my link was the best information about MET-Art this website has to offer at the moment. I even took a moment to write the owner of MET-Art and let them know they have a Wiki entry. They were listed as one of FHM's 50 best websites, yet some Wiki authors thought it was worthy of deletion?!

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL my link is perfectly acceptable. Please don't delete my link until the rules change regarding external links. Fact is, I'm 100% within my right and the rules, if you seriously believe my Met-Art review adds no value, please let's talk about this much more.

I took the review sites out. There are many review sites out there, the two i took out are nothing special. They don't deserve a link any more than a "sample gallery" does because the goal of both is to make money (by having people sign up under them). I don't know if they were originally added for that purpose or if someone was just trying to be helpful, but they have no place here.
This remark is based on a personal judgment of the usability of some review sites, with a personal agenda against advertising that you let come before the WP:EL Manual of Style. Unfortunately it is irrelevant what one think personally of these sites. Reviews can be used to promote/advertise an article or to provide useful information on the subject at hand that is beyond the scope of the main article content, and Wikipedia's stance seem to be to consider the latter:
  • What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
Note that excessive linkage to these sites have no place on Wikipedia. It is on the other hand no link repository. Personally, I think one or two professional reviews are OK here. -- Northgrove 01:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worthless information On Page "non-notable"

1) <<top 500, from alexa.com>> this is not a fact, but a statement, right now this statement is true. Is's at 481, up 98. Which mean it was WAY below the 500 marker.

  • consider change of it's average is over 500, for x time frame.

2) <<The nude photography itself is of high quality, and the site has never allowed their explicit content to go beyond "Penthouse" level. Usually the pictorials are close in nature to Playboy>> again this is not fact. Both Playboy and Pethouse change their "level" over the years. It is unclear that this "level" is.

  • consider redefining: softcore, full frontal, suggests penetration, etc (this can be done without be gross)

3) <<MET is without a doubt the most successful soft-core nude site in the world (more popular than MAXIM, at last count). >> This statement is an opinion. NOT A FACT. How is it the most successful? Because it's the highest rated on alexa? That statement is like: this is like the coolest site.

  • (even though I am a none paying fan of MET-ART)this successfulness needs some outside professional review and/or a fact-iod backing it up.

What's notable to make this a wiki? It's ranted high? Sex sells. One can argue about the use of "known or famous" photographers as a gimmick; many porn site use famous porn starts as a gimmick to boast membership.

All I see is a cut and paste, this to me looks like Spam, self promotion, etc someone said to me "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject."-- FyiFoff 12:42 17 November 2006 (EST)

I have adjusted the article in part to your suggestions (#1 -- now has a time frame, #2 -- replaced this comparison with Penthouse with a more direct description, #3 -- was no longer here when I came to fix this up so N/A). I also adjusted some other sections and introduced unreferenced fact templates where necessary. It is not cut and paste, and since it no longer look like spam at this point, I also removed the advert template. As for notability -- it is ranked high on Alexa, because sex sells, yes, and it is one of the more notable erotica sites on the web according to that statistics, as well as an agreement among reviewers. I don't think it matters why it is notable on the web as you seem to imply. Simply being an erotic site doesn't mean that is a ground for not listing it. -- Northgrove 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

dude, do you realize that you just typed a fucking shitload of words about basically a porn site 64.251.142.19 06:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please only discuss this article on its talk page, and don't come here for insults to those trying to help out. It's just wasting time and draining our energy. -- Northgrove 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Underage Models

Maybe? Dunno, somebody should find out? I think its true though. FyiFoff 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)who are you? no they're not underage. this site is bigger than playboy. porn people hate child porn more than a parent of a raped child.FyiFoff 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that G. Galitsin got arrested in Russia for shooting models under 18. MET-ART meanwhile removed all the Galitsin stuff, even if it used to be one of their first (and most prominent) photographers [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.225.149 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, let's make sure any refernces to Sears and their catalog is removed since the prudes of the world will assuredly consider the under-18 pics there as child exploitation thus child "porn." Seems that the term "child porn" is used extremely liberally nowadays.72.198.206.139 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MAT-ART shows pictures by David Hamilton. The Models truely underage. But underage nudity isn't a problem. Which kind of nudity is important. Marcus Cyron 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info to be added

Due to models privacy www.met-art.com cannot be directly accessed from Russia. Access forbidden.

[edit] IMDB

(cur) (last) 02:56, 26 April 2008 Tabercil (Talk | contribs) (7,487 bytes) (rm name (IMDB is not considered a reliable source)) (undo) Not considered reliable by who?? Wikipedia has a whole page on the IMDB, so Wikipedia acknowledges it exists. Here is Peaches page on Myspace that gives her real name as Judit Rusznyák. http://www.myspace.com/peachesstar1984 . And Wikipedia finds Peaches if you search on Judit Rusznyák. I do not get it!!

There is a very funny segment on the US version of The Office where Michael states that Wikipedia is a very reliable source of information because anyone in the world can change it! Eveyone knows that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable souce. Try quoting it in an asignment and you will probably fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtaste (talk • contribs) 04:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And why do the moderators of the Met-Art page come down so hard. The Hustler page has NO references whatsover and there has been no concern at all!!