- 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 speedy delete as blatant advertising. Salted against re-creation. -- The Anome (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ShockerVideo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article about an apparently-defunct website, insufficient evidence of notability given, fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. the only reference given that was independent of the website does not mention its name anywhere in the article text. Posting this article, and creating a link to it from the amateur pornography article was the sole contribution of the user in question. The Anome (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any third party mentions of this. Looks like an old case of advertising- aside from the SPA creator, it was put on Digg.com, with exactly one digg. You guessed it; same user name as the article creator here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Digg entry clinches it as blatant advertising, and thus speediable. I'll early-close this myself... -- The Anome (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There should be very few articles about web sites; this does not rate. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A non-notable article that is written like WP:SPAM to promote a product. Even the large banner leads you directly to its web site on pornography. Artene50 (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2008 (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.