Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn for the Blind (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:34, 13 December 2012

Porn for the Blind

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It has been 4-5 years since it was last nominated for deletion. Other editors agreed it was a joke, poorly sourced (2 articles in 2008-9 only & nothing since then. The articles never attempted to verify this was legitimate, and only a pseudonym is provided to the sources, making them unreliable.). This is not listed in any charity database. The website has not been updated since 2009 (see copyright on site). The Whois traces to a student's dorm room. If you play some of the mp3 files of the supposed "porn" for the blind, you'll hear 2 guys laughing in the background 1/2 the time. I do not know / understand how this survived as long as it has. There are some useful old comments from the AFD from 4 years ago - please click the links to the right. Nothing has changed since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 December 2012

Comment. This would probably be hard to speedy as a hoax. It sounds like the kind of thing that was clearly created as a gag website (no sexual pun intended), which means that the website is not real as far as its intended purpose as a sex website for blind people. However the website itself does/did exist as a joke website, so it's not really a hoax because it did exist in some format. It just isn't what the article is currently trying to describe. Of course this doesn't mean that it should exist on Wikipedia, just that AfD is probably the best way to go about talking about whether or not this passes notability guidelines. One thing for incoming editors to take into consideration is that if the site only got initial attention that talks about it as if it's a legitimate site, that's probably a good sign that it doesn't have any lasting notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This didn't show up properly on the AfD, so I did some tweaking to where this would show up properly. Cheers!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This contained some text and delete arguments from the 2009 AfD, so I'm removing those comments to avoid confusion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. I'm coming up with search results for a Canadian artist that is creating erotic art in braille that is unrelated to the website, so there will be some false positives here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is nothing out there that shows 100% that this is either real or fake. It looks like enough people had taken the site seriously when it was initially announced to where even if it is a joke website, some uploaded clips without the intention of actually providing audio narration for blind people while others clearly meant for the clips to be used for that purpose. However here's the big issue: despite claims that the website was launched back in 2006/2007, the site really only gained notice in 2008 when it was first announced to exist. Other than one or two brief articles that came out a short period of time later (as in 1 paragraph type articles), the website has attracted no further attention. I also notice that its Alexa rank is rather low for any type of website, but especially a pornography website, although I know that this isn't in itself a reason to delete. Why I mention that is because it looks like the site got a brief spate of articles in 2008 that announced it exists and was then largely ignored by the world in general. There is this Vice article (unsure if this is just a random contributor or a staff writer, though) and this German website, but neither really seem to suggest that they're the type of long term coverage that would show that this website passes WP:WEB. If there were a little more than this could potentially pass, but right now there just isn't enough for me to really think it passes notability guidelines. It's close, but not close enough.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :{{la|Porn for the Blind}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn for the Blind (3rd nomination)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 13#{{anchorencode:Porn for the Blind}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porn_for_the_Blind_(3rd_nomination) Stats]</span>)
 :({{Find sources|Porn for the Blind}})
-It has been 4-5 years since it was last nominated for deletion.  Other editors agreed it was a hoax, poorly sourced (2 articles in 2008-9 only & nothing since then.  The articles never attempted to verify this was legitimate, and only a pseudonym is provided to the sources, making them unreliable.).  This is not listed in any charity database.  The website has not been updated since 2009 (see copyright on site). The Whois traces to a student's dorm room.  If you play some of the mp3 files of the supposed "porn" for the blind, you'll hear 2 guys laughing in the background 1/2 the time.  I do not know / understand how this survived as long as it has.  Here are some useful old comments from the AFD from 4 years ago.  Nothing has changed. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Angelatomato|Angelatomato]] ([[User talk:Angelatomato|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Angelatomato|contribs]]) 23:17, 12 December 2012</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
+It has been 4-5 years since it was last nominated for deletion.  Other editors agreed it was a joke, poorly sourced (2 articles in 2008-9 only & nothing since then.  The articles never attempted to verify this was legitimate, and only a pseudonym is provided to the sources, making them unreliable.).  This is not listed in any charity database.  The website has not been updated since 2009 (see copyright on site). The Whois traces to a student's dorm room.  If you play some of the mp3 files of the supposed "porn" for the blind, you'll hear 2 guys laughing in the background 1/2 the time.  I do not know / understand how this survived as long as it has.  There are some useful old comments from the AFD from 4 years ago - please click the links to the right.  Nothing has changed since then. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Angelatomato|Angelatomato]] ([[User talk:Angelatomato|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Angelatomato|contribs]]) 23:17, 12 December 2012</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 *'''Comment'''. This would probably be hard to speedy as a hoax. It sounds like the kind of thing that was clearly created as a gag website (no sexual pun intended), which means that the website is not real as far as its intended purpose as a sex website for blind people. However the website itself does/did exist as a joke website, so it's not really a hoax because it did exist in some format. It just isn't what the article is currently trying to describe. Of course this doesn't mean that it should exist on Wikipedia, just that AfD is probably the best way to go about talking about whether or not this passes notability guidelines. One thing for incoming editors to take into consideration is that if the site only got initial attention that talks about it as if it's a legitimate site, that's probably a good sign that it doesn't have any lasting notability.[[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]] ([[User talk:Tokyogirl79|talk]]) 04:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''': This didn't show up properly on the AfD, so I did some tweaking to where this would show up properly. Cheers![[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]] ([[User talk:Tokyogirl79|talk]]) 04:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)