Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapphicerotica

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 of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphicerotica

Was prodded as a nn website. Let's just say that I've heard of it. Alexa gives it a traffic rank of 3 346. —Ruud 01:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn, unless evidence of notability (e.g. discussion of site in major media) is added to the article. dbtfz ^talk 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Given that Google returns 8 million results for "lesbian porn" and 230K hits for this site, how do you determine what is a notable lesbian porn site? Just curious. Fan1967 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal experience I'd guess :) —Ruud 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Neutral. I've added the site's review from Janesguide.com... I'm not sure it's the kind of "major media" Dbtfz is thinking of, but I think it's kind of major within the world of internet porn. Other reviews are here and here, but I don't know anything about those sites. (Ruud, it sounds like you're arguing for a keep... why did you decide to AfD it?) --Allen 04:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:WEB, I would like to see evidence that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." One minor review on what seems to be a fairly obscure web site doesn't quite cut it. dbtfz^talk 04:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This page lists reviews at nine sites, but I'm changing my vote to neutral anyway. You make a good argument for deletion, but these reviews seem well beyond what's considered "trivial" at WP:WEB, yet short of the When I Am King examples. I dunno. --Allen 04:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I don't mean to be a party-pooper, but I fear that if we set the bar too low for porn sites we'll be flooded with even more porn-related vanispamcruftisement than we already are. dbtfz ^talk 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I wasted time doing this, but a google search for porn site ratings turned up these: [1], [2], [3], [4]. They all give extremely high ratings to this site. I have no idea what constitutes a significant reviewer in online porn, but they all gave Sapphicerotica very high ratings compared to the other sites reviewed. ~~So, lacking some authoritative contradiction, I'll vote Keep.~~ Fan1967 04:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean we have to include Ass Traffic, Pantyhose Addict, and College Fuck Fest, all of which got the same ranking as this one (according to one of your references)? Heaven help us. :-) dbtfz^talk 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction: Ass Traffic got a higher ranking. dbtfz^talk 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I certainly understand your concern, but I have to go back to my earlier question. If it is accepted to list porn sites in WP, how do you determine which ones are worthy of listing? You don't like any of the references presented. Do you have some alternatives? Fan1967 05:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - IMO, websites should have articles only if they satisfy the criteria specified at WP:WEB. IMO, no one has given evidence that this one satisfies those criteria. It's as simple as that. dbtfz ^talk 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        IMO you ducked the question. What would you consider as a specific qualification for a porn site to be considered notable? Fan1967 05:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        IMO somebody should get moving on that Ass Traffic stub. :-) --Allen 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm on it. ;-) But seriously, see SuicideGirls for an example of a porn site article with suitable references. dbtfz ^talk 06:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I've withdrawn my keep vote. I certainly have no stake in keeping a lesporn site listed. Maybe I was playing devil's advocate a bit. One might be able to argue that this site is more notable than some of the sfcruft or gamecruft sites that are well represented on WP, but that's another story. Fan1967 15:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:WEB with high Alexa rating and some evidence of third party significance. Capitalistroadster 05:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With not even a sniff of a credible third party refence, this is currently not satisfying the website notability guidelines.
- WP:WEB specificly excludes "a brief summary of the nature of the content". Most "reviews" would fall into this category.
- Porn review sites are not reliable sources. Even if they were reliable sources, they list more sites than you can shake your stick at, and we're clearly not going to have them all. Hence the exclusion above.
- Attempting to set some hurdle that only "good" sites based upon these reviews is certainly a novel concept, but a flawed one. Leaving aside the question of if we set the bar above or below Ass Traffic, the possability exists that only those sites that have click-though kickbacks are given high ratings. Reputable and unbiased are what we look for in sources, after all.

If this is actually a notable lesbian porn website, it will have gotten a real write up, probably more than a few. There's no reason at all to weaken the guidelines for porn sites, and a damn good reason to insure that they are maintained. We have enough trouble with amatuers trying to leech bandwidth for bucks, we don't want to encourage the proffesionals. Löschen unless evidence that is satisfies the guideline is placed in the article.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 08:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No hits in Lexis/Nexis. Thatcher131 12:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Traffic alone isn't notable. Sidewalks see thousands of feet, but aren't written about. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything dbtfz has said so far. It's a shame about the Alexa ranking, but only slightly. Melchoir 08:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS; no significant coverage in reliable external sources. And it's porncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 12:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, as non-notable website --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 13:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the traffic. The sidewalk analogy is good. This topic isn't verifiable, and thus cannot be included. Ned Wilbury 15:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:V and WP:RS. In fact this is one of the most notable sites (and spreader of teaser pages to promote the subscription website) in its niche, but until sources meeting WP standards provide some feature coverage, it's just another not-noted-enough special-interest thingy. At some point perhaps we should agree on Adult Video News or some other source to be considered "authoritative" since no formal peer review is likely to evolve in that field. The verifiability standards do recognize that some areas of encyclopedic knowledge are open to more formal rigor than others. As Dbtfz and others have noted, there are particularly unreliable sources and traffic statistics in the field of online, uh, figure art. Barno 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen, article doesn't establish this porn site as any more notable than any other. JIP | Talk 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh come on, delete the article already. It's just another porn site. JIP | Talk 21:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sapphice it to say, no indication this is any different from another porn site, high traffic notwithstanding. Fagstein 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anyone voting 'delete' on this one doesn't know much about porn. This is a huge, highly-notable site. Cyde Weys 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit that my knowledge of porn does not extend beyond the extensive collection of nazi midget clown fetish gear that I keep under my bed. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 22:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyone done a google image search and seen how many hits come up on that? (given that porn is a visual/image kinda thing, then obviously its main searches will be on google image search, this is not just trying to get you all to look at some lesbian action) --Midnighttonight 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did some searches. As noted above, what matters is whether this is notable as a pr0n site - I see no indication that it is, and there are any number of them. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a directory of porn sites. Just zis Guy you know? 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I asked myself, what does this encyclopedia entry say that would not be readily apparent to users of the site, and the answer is nothing. To use a lopsided example, the article on Google has lots of information about history, controversy, etc. that is not readily available to google users. Someone who knows about Sapphicerotica will not find anything here they don't already know; and while someone looking for lesbian erotica might find it by searching here, WP is not an internet search engine. Thatcher131 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep One of the more notable porn sites, if Abby Winters has an article, this is on a similar level of success/notability Richard cocks 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They may be a well known lesbian porn site I fail to see what is encyclopedic about it. The same goes for Abby Winters. kotepho 08:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.