Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbywinters.com

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 was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure per WP:SNOW), overwhelming consensus, nom did not proffer deletion criteria.  RGTraynor  14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abbywinters.com

Abbywinters.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Is this notable? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep; whatever happened to opening an AfD with a explanation of why it should be deleted, instead of a snide comment? It's notable and verifiable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if you considered my comment to be "snide" -- it's just that I don't consider media outlets like "Best of Porn" and "Adult DVD Talk" to be notable information resources. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither do I, and those should be replaced or removed per WP:RS. But the notability derives from being covered by WIRED, multiple newspapers, and sex industry outlets like AVN. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Stating that that you consider certain sources to be unreliable is helpful; people can fix those references, or show that the remaining ones are sufficient. Your original post had nothing of that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I sincerely apologize if my initial comments were not clear. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment; as a note, which the nominator didn't care to point out, this has passed ("no consensus") one AfD ("VfD") before: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abby Winters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The site is notable, with 18 references cnfirming it. Soxred93 | talk bot 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient third party coverage to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Some of those 18 references are first-party, but there's enough different other reliable sources to demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it has some issues, there are sufficient references in article to demonstrate notability. Consider other approaches for imperfect articles before AFD such as tagging e.g. {{more sources}}. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes notability concerns. Bfigura (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks notable enough to me, if you catch my drift (that is, the references establish notability). Klausness (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep the AVN award confirms notability Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2008 (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.