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 Closed by non-admin article has already been subject to afd & result was Keep notability was established. This afd is obviously going the same way.RMHED 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PornoTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Was tagged as a G11 speedy by User:Siddhartha Gautama (now indef blocked) with the following rationale "advertisement of pornography website. References are dubious. Hundreds of references regarding pornography website or porn models can be found on internet. If a report about criminal appear in some newspager, then all criminals find place on wikipedia. No reliable, reputed source. This is attempt to advertise website on wikipedia." and two admins simultaneously came to opposing conclusions. With the deleting admins permission, I've restored the article for an AfD run to get some more input on it. Somewhat of a procedural nomination, so no opinion. henrik•talk 23:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is not an obscure site. --- tqbf 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Well referenced, notable, fits the bill just fine. Sounds like the indef blocked user was either trying to prove a point or ignore WP:CENSORED. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per lack of anyone actually wanting to delete it in this AFD. Referencing is fine, topic appears quite notable. The mainstream media usually doesn't want to touch "porno" websites with a ten foot pole and yet there are plenty of sources. That this was speedy deleted is pretty sad... the average admin's grasp of CSD seems to decrease every day. --W.marsh 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - help me out here, I'm sort of new: the previous AfD, from a while ago, was a unanimous keep. Why is this back here again? --- tqbf 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An inexperienced admin who speedy deleted the article... I just don't think he really looked at the article or realized there was a previous unanimous keep AFD. Accidents happen... hopefully he'll be more careful now. This discussion should be closed as a speedy keep by an uninvolved admin. --W.marsh 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Because of people disagreeing with consensus. Maybe a bad faith nomination, or maybe the article has changed significantly in the mean time, I don't know. These things just happen. Just yesterday, one guy nominated an article about a Canadian politician who's about as famous in Canada as Condoleeza Rice is in the US. --Blanchardb 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that the deleting admin indicated he didn't think it would be kept at an AfD-discussion when I asked about the deletion is what prompted this AfD. henrik•talk 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know. That's what you said. Actually, I was referring to the original CSD nomination by the sockpuppeteer. --Blanchardb 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So then... in the interests of furthering my undeserved, free education in WP process... why is this AfD still open? It was a vociferous unanimous prior keep. --- tqbf 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. JJL 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The refs from Google News cited by --- tqbf above appear to satisfy WP:N. Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 03:12, 13 November 2007 (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.