Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PornoTube

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 Keep. To date there have been no delete !votes and several speedy keep ones. The keep votes also cite a number of reliable sources to establish its notability. Viridae^Talk 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PornoTube

PornoTube (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page was deleted several times, most recently by User:Zoe. Several people have felt that this most recent speedy deletion was improper, per this discussion on ANI. I am putting this up for AfD so it can be decided on once and for all. No opinion. Grandmasterka 22:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Highly notable website. Alexa rank of 205. [1] An indepedent article claiming that the website is very important. [2] Dionyseus 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - the creator has actually made a later version here which cites [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] FIVE reliable sources as to its notability, including CNN. Alexa.com ranks it as the 200th most visited website on the planet.  Glen  22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- multiple, external articles with PornoTube as the subject satisfies WP:WEB. Dylan 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious KEEP no opinion? Maybe you need to to tell us again why this is on here I can't see any reason why? Its meets the criteria? Plenty of outside reasources? Is this a typo why its here?--Xiahou 23:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that Grandmasterka just wanted to put it through AfD so that a final, consensus decision could be established on the status of the article -- it's been speedied and {{prod}}ed multiple times, and so if AfD sees fit that it stays, it can kind of put to rest the debate over it. Dylan 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Xiahou, it's a procedural nomination via deletion review, which is only supposed to determine whether a deletion process was properly followed. If an article has never had an AFD, or there is a new reason why it should, an administrator makes the nomination without stating an opinion. It's just a procedural handoff.--Dhartung | Talk 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not DRV actually, but protest over a speedy deletion at WP:ANI. Viridae^Talk 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Whatever the merits of the site, it has numerous independent reliable sources to show its notability, and over 400,000 Google hits. Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 23:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Glen S above. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, references prove notability per WP:WEB. No prejudice against earlier AFDs which were for a substub version of the article. Oh, and move to PornoTube. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-sourced, neutral article on a webpage with significant media coverage. -- SCZenz 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep multiple indepedent verifiable sources. Catchpole 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as above. Pathlessdesert 00:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep keep per my comment on WP:ANI Localzuk^(talk) 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Glen Mujinga 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has a pagerank of 6. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notability established. No objection to a speedy keep. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:32, 17 December 2006 (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.