Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult Stars Magazine

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 Non-admin closure: G7: author has blanked the page. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adult Stars Magazine

Adult Stars Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable porn magazine - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Strong delete. There's nothing to indicate that its notable at all. It was also speedily deleted three times before.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE" This wikipedia entree is informative and their is plenty of info on the net to back up all the entree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter789 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete As per the first comment. And if anything, the above comment just makes my delete stronger. Noble Story (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete non-notable spam article. Lots of "informative" articles get deleted on a regular basis. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Remove I have been a fan of this magazine for years. I don't see the problem? I was going to add to the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfromtheburg (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — Davidfromtheburg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Let me just say welcome to Davidfromtheburg. It's nice to see that new users can find AfD so easily and enter into discussions. I'd like to suggest you have a look at some of the policies and criteria we will be discussing in this debate so that you can help to improve not only this article but, the project as a whole. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP I dont see what all the hub bub is about? Its just like everything else on wikipedi. Its fine to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherrybabyfla (talk • contribs) — Sherrbabyfla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wow, another user whose only edit is on this discussion...--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

*Keep I can see that Cobaltbluetony and cyberghostface have team up to delete this article. Good job guys. I hope Wikipedia does better than that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter789 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You already voted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: First, you only get one "vote" here. Second, I opened this up to the public here as you requested and you initiated meatpuppetry by inviting Sherrbabyfla and Davidfromtheburg. They are not users who are familiar with our guidelines and policies, and cannot be expected to immediately understand the purpose of the project here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability... no sources... no way we should keep it! As an aside to some of the comments above - this isn't a vote, we're trying to achieve consensus. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't see any use for this article, bad references. Dwilso 16:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, spam, etc.Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Its amazing that this article is getting so much attention compared to everything else today. Cobaltblueltony has gotten his friends together to comment and to delete a legitimate article for wikipedia. What make this article different than any thing else? I hope this is not the way Wikipedia is ran - by dictators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.238.163 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 76.110.238.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Does not meet WP:WEB, no sources. I give it zero stars. Jim Miller (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and JimMillerJr. Epically fails WP:WEB and is totally unsourced. ~ mazca talk 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dekkappai (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:WEB. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SPAM. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. I found one, at best two, WP:RS mentions. Just enough to verify that they are a real website. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Baxter and an anon between them seem to have just deleted the entire content of the article, including the Afd notice. I restored the text and the notice. I have no comment on the article, but that's not the way to "discuss" it. DGG (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete By being the primary author of the information Baxter blanking the page means that it meets criteria for speedy deletion. Or that is my understanding. I don't know how to cross out my earlier comments so if someone would be kind enough to do it for me that would be great. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - that doesn't apply. CSD:G7 (Author requests deletion) only applies if "the page's only substantial content was added by its author" which isn't the case. Looking at the history of the page it appears that CobaltBlueTony started the page, but 76.110.238.163 and Baxter789 have both contributed as well. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, Cobalt didn't create the page. The page had been blocked to prevent recreation, and the original author told him to bring it back so the public could decide.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • exactly the reason I made my comment. As I don't have access to admin tools I wasn't able to verify but, I understood that CobaltBlueTony had brought it "back at the author's request". If Baxter789 or the IP isn't the original author than my apologies are extended. Otherwise, I think it still would meet the criteria I stated, especially when you note that Baxter789 created his userpage with the article in question as shown here [1]. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Works for me. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:30, 1 May 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.