Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streamate

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Streamate[edit]

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

Declined WP:PROD on the questionable grounds that deletion has been previously proposed (the only previous proposed deletion was successful), so wasting everyone's time bringing it here to do it the long way round. My previous rationale—It's been five months and still yet to see a single reliable source on this article for anything other than the bare fact it exists. Note that the "previous prod" on the talkpage is for a decade-old version deleted in 2007, not for this article.—remains unchanged. Note that this particular piece of spam (albeit with slightly different wording each time) has in the past already been deleted by a full house of AfD, proposed deletion and speedy deletion. ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion other than to point out that not even a successful, unchallenged PROD allocates an article a second PROD, but that would be reasonable to change if desired... Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotionalism only for a nn website. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a puff piece with no real claim of notability. Perhaps someone could write a legitimate article about this business, discussing honestly subjects like the fact that their "models" receive barely a third of the revenue their performances bring in, but even that would require much more substantive sourcing than has been found so far. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2017 (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.