Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gag on my Cock

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gag on my Cock

(Completing nom) nn pornsite (it has an alexa rating of 4,100 - but since 90% of those above it will be porn that does not say much - I din't even bother using Google) --Doc (?) 23:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Now if it had been an article on silencing domestic fowl, maybe... but as it is delete, non-notable porn site. Sliggy 00:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. -- DS1953 00:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand Doc's argument. A high Alexa rating for an entertainment website is a good thing, and 4100 is very high indeed. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My argument is this. If a double glazing company got this Alexa rating, they'd be notable - because few double glazing companies would get a higher rating - thus it would probably be one of the most notable businesses in its field . But the nature of the internet is that at least 2,000 of the 4,000 sites rated above this porn site will be other porn sites - thus this is not a high rating for a pornsite - thus nn. If every business with as little impact, turnover and staff as this one is likely to have were mentioned, then my local butcher (or glazier, to keep the analogy) would be worth an article. --Doc (?) 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh I think I understand your argument, now. However I cannot find any support for it. Looking at Alexa's top 500 list, for instance, you'd think that if your assumption were correct about half of those on the list would be porn sites. Well actually that turns out to be completely untrue. There are some porn sites there, but they're pretty sparse. I think the main reason people will want to delete this is that it's a porn site. Well I disagree with that reason, too. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please see talk for why DG is correct that a porn Alexa rank of over 4000 does not indicate notability.
      brenneman^(t)(c) 15:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nominator.--nixie 02:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I have no objection to articles on porn sites, but this one doesn't seem notable enough. -- Kjkolb 08:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn --TimPope 12:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Doc. Radiant_>|< 15:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. CalJW 19:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only claim to notability is high Alexa ranking and that's not enough for an otherwise non-notable porn site. Quale 05:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Proto t c 13:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think Tony is probbaly the same cat who posted this, or a friend of such. This content is crap. McA 19:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you are implying about Tony here, but I think it is uncalled for --Doc (?) 21:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  For the record, no I didn't post that on Wikipedia. I think the article belongs on Wikipedia because it's encyclopedic and neutral and it's about a fairly popular pornographic website. I would not be ashamed about having posted neutral and verifiable information about any subject, whether pornographic or not, but I didn't post that content. Glad you asked. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep please tony is right again even though this one seems hopeless to me Yuckfoo 19:04, 7 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.