Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meatholes

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 Delete - apart from the well-argued comments from Pascal.Tesson, the keep opinions were either directed at the nominator's character or from a single purpose account. The consensus is that this is non-notable Yomangani^talk 10:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Meatholes

The article reads like an advertisement, is not notable, and all attempts to clean it up are quickly reverted by vandals to read, once again, just like an advertisement Orayzio 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and weep. Rewrite. Protect if need be This is a sick site that has gotten non-trivial third-party coverage for their actual abuse of women [1] [2] [3] (linked to in the article) but also [4]. The name has often come up in blogs relating to censorship and the limits of decency. I think the article of the newpartisan [5] is particularly disturbing and in facts makes a perfect case as to why Wikipedia should keep the article. Not to promote the site, not to denounce the site as indecent but to explain where it fits in the pornography world and to gather the little bit of reliable information that exists about it beyond all the advertising of its creators and, sadly, fans. Pascal.Tesson 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's kept, it will need to be protected. Anonymous IP users keep changing any of my edits that try to make it less of an advertising page and much less hyperbole. I'll be out of town for two weeks, so I can't monitor it. -Orayzio 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps remove the allegation the the series creator is Bill Handel's brother, other than that there is no problem. This user who nominated it, nominated the other day too before any edit war happened, he (Orazio?) has clearly a religious censorship agenda. This man is trying to censor all the articles about the adult industry! The fact is that this has been a well trafficked article since May, the wikipedia article is the second google search result for meatholes and provides useful information about the series, its creator, and the women who have been in it, and the like, whats more i count about 50 unique editors since may, this article should never be deleted OR protected and requests to unprotect will be forthcoming if it ever gets protected, especially if it is protected after the right wing christian orayzio gets his slash and burn edits.Keep--0000001 01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments (a few of them). First, the article can be semi-protected if people agree that anonymous editors persistently try to sway the content in an overly sympathetic way. Second, no one owns the page so if you go away for a week then that's not any other editor's problem. Third, there's no need for the right-wing-christian-censorship-conspiracy-theory scare here. Let's just look at the bare facts (no pun intended): the article contains quotes like "Tusion's 'Meatmembers Network' continues to grow in popularity exponentially and doesn't show any sign of slowing down.", there's no mention of the serious accusations formulated by a number of pornstars against unscripted abuse, there's completely unverifiable research like "However it can be said that through anecdotal evidence that it can be determined that he is in fact a white male in approximately his mid forties. Mr. Tusion is said to be a wealthy real estate speculator and family man, if this is indeed the case, then this could perhaps be posited as the catalyst for his anonymous orientation as an artist.". Let's face it: the article as it stands is a prime example of what good Wikipedia articles should not be. And it's not the christian right's fault, it's what happens when the article is maintained by essentially one user, namely 0000001 (talk · contribs), who is either a big fan or someone related to the site (all his Wikipedia edits are to meatholes related) and where anonymous IPs keep adding extra spam. 000001 you claim that there are 50 unique editors but you're counting the anonymous IPs! remove them and the people that obviously are only editing because they're on RC patrol and you'll be hard pressed to find more than a dozen significant contributions. As for it being the second Google result, let me assure you that if this article received the significant traffic you claim, then it would be the first hit.Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Keep. I agree with 00001 this is imperitive that this religious guy doesn't get his way. There is no way this is an advertisement, it doesn't even list the official site, and it is about a website! what a joke! It is just like an entry for a rock album or something which says what label it is distributed under, hence giving information as to where one could acquire the product, it is informative about the series creator, if you are gonna tear that up, why don't we separate it and make Khan Tusion his own article just like Max Hardcore? Bet you wouldn't like that, there has also been numerous articles written about this guy and his series, and it is a popular series...the religious agenda here is so clear. Someone should ban Orayzio indefinitely for wasting all our time.--BringTheBiff 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note - this is (of course?) BringTheBiff (talk · contribs)'s first and only edit. --Brianyoumans 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment In response to my critics, please remember the rule of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Second, I am both an atheist and a liberal, I support pornography, and I abhor censorship; I nominated this article for deletion because it reads like an advertisement and because there is no evidence that Meatholes is as popular as the article states. In my view, it is not a notable subject for Wikipedia, but my view is just that, my view. Third, my edits have all been explained in edit summaries and are backed up by opinions states on the talk page. If anyone disagrees with any edit, they should discuss this disagreement on the talk page before they revert anyone's edits that were made in good faith. My edits have gone towards the goal of making the article better. I've removed questionable assertions that have no references (including a link to an IMDb biography that contains no content and I've tried to make the article read less like ad copy for the Meatholes network.

As to the statement that this article doesn't even include a link to the Official Site, it contained an affiliate tagged URL that redirected to the Meatholes tour page, which was obvious advertising. I've replaced this with a link to the offical site, not once, but twice now. The first time it was reverted back to the spammy link.

My opinion is that "Meatholes", as presented in the current version of this article, is still not notable and should not be in this encyclopedia. However, if the consensus is that the article can be improved to become notable, I wholly support that and my edits have gone towards that goal. -Orayzio 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that the previous right-wing conspiracy accusations are nonsense. However, I have a slight beef (still no pun intended) with that last comment: the debate should not be about whether the current article reads as advertisement. I think it undisputably needs to be severely rewritten and carefully watched in the future (that is, if it is kept at all). The current debate is whether or not this is a subject on which one could write a significant article that meets our criteria with respect to notability of web content, verifiability and neutrality. I don't claim to have a definite answer to that question but that's what the debate should be centered on.Pascal.Tesson 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Seems like a very minor player, mostly mentioned in articles for being extreme and unpleasant. Article is mostly ad copy. Unless someone can write a good NPOV article that establishes notability, why have an article on this guy? --Brianyoumans 02:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - None of the articles listed above are principally about Meatholes. The New Partisan pieces (how notable is this online journal anyways?) are interviews with porn stars; in one case her work for Meatholes is discussed at length, in the other it was mentioned briefly. Another of the articles does not mention Meatholes at all, but the site is mentioned in the reader comments. The New Partisan editor was evidently planning an article on extreme porn, but I don't see any signs that the article got written. AVN online is an industry publication, the article is about a group of several sites including Meatholes. --Brianyoumans 02:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I guess I will change my vote to weak keep: I may have overestimated the quality of the third-party references a bit. But I still think the article has some interest, provided that it can be maintained at an acceptable tone and neutrality. Pascal.Tesson 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have blocked 00000001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for once again removing the AfD notice from the article after being warned not to do so. The user had only 4 edits to Wikipedia, 2 of them to remove the AfD from that article. No vote from me on keeping or deleting the article, but if it is kept I support semi-protection of the article. I have had to warn numerous IP addresses about bad behavior (unreference clains, talk-page blanking, etc.) on that article and I don't even check it that regularly. Johntex\^talk 03:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed my vote to delete. I am now convinced they are a minor player in the porn industry and not-notable enough for an article. Johntex\^talk 19:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Given some of the comments, I think we need some more !votes in this AfD to gain opinion from a wider audience. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a niche porn site, and the sooner it's removed the better. Wildthing61476 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. With no source citations, there's no verification that anything the article says is true. And the reader shouldn't be forced to browse the external links to look for that verification. Most of the unsourced info was about living persons in direct violation of WP:BLP, so I've removed it. which now reduces the article to a stub. wikipediatrix 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete poorly referenced, and the article contains no real assertion of notability. WP:WEB requires that the article, or its talk page, assert the notability of the site, which this does not.-- danntm ^T _C 01:12, 12 October 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.