Talk:MET ART
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] SPAM
Added spam tag, in case article survives AFD. Still would need to be cleaned-up.Roodog2k 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the tag after eliminating what I judged was spam. Right now there is still next to no content, but I don't feel anything in it can be considered spam. If you feel like it still deserves a spam tag, please let me know which part gives you that impression here if possible, and I will attempt to clean it up too.Beltz 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EL
To the person who deleted my external link. Did you visit the link? Please answer honestly. Certainly my link was the best information about MET-Art this website has to offer at the moment. I even took a moment to write the owner of MET-Art and let them know they have a Wiki entry. They were listed as one of FHM's 50 best websites, yet some Wiki authors thought it was worthy of deletion?!
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL my link is perfectly acceptable. Please don't delete my link until the rules change regarding external links. Fact is, I'm 100% within my right and the rules, if you seriously believe my Met-Art review adds no value, please let's talk about this much more.
- I took the review sites out. There are many review sites out there, the two i took out are nothing special. They don't deserve a link any more than a "sample gallery" does because the goal of both is to make money (by having people sign up under them). I don't know if they were originally added for that purpose or if someone was just trying to be helpful, but they have no place here.
[edit] Worthless information On Page "non-notable"
1) <<top 500, from alexa.com>> this is not a fact, but a statement, right now this statement is true. Is's at 481, up 98. Which mean it was WAY below the 500 marker.
- consider change of it's average is over 500, for x time frame.
2) <<The nude photography itself is of high quality, and the site has never allowed their explicit content to go beyond "Penthouse" level. Usually the pictorials are close in nature to Playboy>> again this is not fact. Both Playboy and Pethouse change their "level" over the years. It is unclear that this "level" is.
- consider redefining: softcore, full frontal, suggests penetration, etc (this can be done without be gross)
3) <<MET is without a doubt the most successful soft-core nude site in the world (more popular than MAXIM, at last count). >> This statement is an opinion. NOT A FACT. How is it the most successful? Because it's the highest rated on alexa? That statement is like: this is like the coolest site.
- (even though I am a none paying fan of MET-ART)this successfulness needs some outside professional review and/or a fact-iod backing it up.
What's notable to make this a wiki? It's ranted high? Sex sells. One can argue about the use of "known or famous" photographers as a gimmick; many porn site use famous porn starts as a gimmick to boast membership.
All I see is a cut and paste, this to me looks like Spam, self promotion, etc someone said to me "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject."-- FyiFoff 12:42 17 November 2006 (EST)
dude, do you realize that you just typed a fucking shitload of words about basically a porn site 64.251.142.19 06:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Underage Models
Maybe? Dunno, somebody should find out? I think its true though. FyiFoff 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)who are you? no they're not underage. this site is bigger than playboy. porn people hate child porn more than a parent of a raped child.FyiFoff 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that G. Galitsin got arrested in Russia for shooting models under 18. MET-ART meanwhile removed all the Galitsin stuff, even if it used to be one of their first (and most prominent) photographers [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.225.149 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Info to be added
Due to models privacy www.met-art.com cannot be directly accessed from Russia. Access forbidden.
