Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MILF Hunter (2nd nomination)

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 delete. - Philippe 14:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MILF Hunter

MILF Hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

• (procedural) Completing nomination by User:Johnthepcson. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete I can see no reason to keep this article. In no way is it notable, except in the fact that it is a huge advertisement upon Wikipedia. It is mostly self-sourced and the only other sources are reference sites and a one-off mention in Rolling Stone not even about the website itself, but about someone who was in some way connected with the website. If a film is placed upon imdb.com and then an unknown actor has a small article written about him in which it mentions, once, that he appeared in that film, then that film would not be considered notable whatsoever. This analogy applies to this website. Furthermore, you shouldn't use alexa.com as proof that it is notable - for all we know this Wikipedia article is an advertisement for this website, generating all those hits. We need much more proof that this website it notable and so it should be deleted immediately. Johnthepcson 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Johnthepcson. Not a notable website per WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an advertisement for another run of mill porn site. Gwandoya ^Talk 20:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Site is notable, barely (pardon the pun) ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I looked up the AVN and XBIZ websites (the two main trade journals of porn) to find articles about milf hunter and only found 3 non-trivial articles. However 2 of them look like they're elicited by a press release about the same topic.[1][2]. The other is about taking legal action against imitators.[3] However I normally regard AVN articles with suspicion since they take in advertisement money from the companies and products they report on and review which is a conflict of interest. I suspect the same applies for XBIZ. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nothing has changed since the first nomination in December '05: there is still no claim to notability, and it still reads like promotion. Reading through the original AfD, most of the keep votes made no attempt to actually answer the charges that were made, and a great many of them came from single purpose accounts, and one from a user who was subsequently banned. The keep rationales this time will have to be looked at very closely, as should the users who make said votes. By all rights, this should have been deleted back then. At any rate, delete it now and be done with it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Site is notable, is the subject of many written articles and media coverage. Subject is part of the "Bang Brothers-Capt. Stabbin-MILF Hunter" Miami-based gonzo porn scene that has been covered in the media for years. Furthermore, overall "policy" consequences are not at issue in this discussion -- simply the notability of the subject. If you are voting to "delete" simply to voice your views on pornography or pay-sites in general your vote is not relevant here. Please Srong Keep. JeanLatore (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Can you give some examples of the independent written articles and media coverage that give significant coverage to MILF Hunter specifically? Vinh1313 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources are found to prove notability. Current sources completely fail to do so.--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The name is definitely well-known, but establishing notability through reliable and independent sources may be a challenge. It's in a scholarly article (one of nine adult websites studied), but unlike some other porn names hasn't, uh, penetrated mainstream media yet. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, without much stronger sources. The sources listed aren't enough -- one is a review on a porn directory, one is an Alexa ranking, and one -- the Rolling Stone article -- is not about the site at all, but about a dude who works there (and yes, I think commercial porn sites like this should all be held to more stringent standards to prevent the allure of free advertising and, er, enthusiastic original research, but anyway). Anyway, I don't have access to the Men's Studies article mentioned above, which could count, but without that and other sources I'd say there's nothing showing that this is any more notable than any other porn site. Relying on Alexa's fairly unreliable data -- and only placing in the top 4000, at that -- shouldn't be enough alone to justify an article. -- phoebe / (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. 2 Reasons: (i) notability not established; (ii) it's an encyclopedia, not a place for ads. --Abrech (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. Personally I believe that this website is notable, but that said it still needs to pass our standards for verifiability and at this point it does not. If proper sources can be found then of course I will withdraw this motion and endorse the article inclusion. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:22, 14 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.