Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Erotic Review

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. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Erotic Review[edit]

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

I'm nominating this on behalf of User:Treehousepark, who has been fairly adamant on wanting the page deleted. Several speedies have been declined, but mostly because they didn't meet any of the requirements for a speedy deletion. Note: the user claims that they are editing on behalf of the company that owns the website. The coverage is light, but this looks like it might actually pass WP:WEB, but just barely. In this case I'd probably personally vote for a weak keep, but I'm going to nominate it just so the website gets a full range of opinions from various editors. The coverage is there, but it's also fairly light at the same time so I can see where an AfD would go either way. I just want to state that I personally wouldn't have nominated this for deletion if not for Treehousepark continuously wanting it deleted. I figure that this way we can get an official consensus on whether or not it passes notability guidelines and if so, then keep the page and if not, send it to the moon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject certainly meets WP:GNG, as evidenced by references given to articles in Wired, MSNBC, etc. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly a notable subject, per FreeRangeFrog. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

I would like to request that the Wikipedia page/article on The Erotic Review be deleted on several grounds:

First, through a review of our corporate records, it has come to our attention that several of the statements reported in the articles referenced are factually and legally inaccurate. We are currently in the process of having all the articles referenced on the Wikipedia page pulled down and/or revised.

The article in Reference Number 7 contained a reference/link to a Statement in paragraph 3 (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/prostitution-site-cuts-ties-with-founder-after-charges/?_r=0). That Statement contained inaccurate information and you will note has since been pulled down.

Any reference to David Elms as a founder, owner, creator, CEO, president, etc. are factually and legally inaccurate.

Any reference to the site being based or operating in The Netherlands is factually and legally inaccurate.

Since most referenced articles incorrectly state these 'facts' we are aggressively working to get them removed and/or revised. The misinformation in these articles has proven to be financially harmful to the site, The Erotic Review.

For these reasons the Wikipedia page/article on The Erotic Review is inaccurate, full of falsities, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.249.32 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However the problem is that at one point he was the founder or was at least considered to be as far as the media goes. We have to go by what the sources say. If you can have someone write an updated news report on the site that correct these issues and prove that they are factually incorrect, we can change the article accordingly. However we cannot simply accept on your say-so that the article is incorrect, especially since you are editing on behalf of the company and therefore have a conflict of interest. You would benefit from the article getting written to be as complimentary as possible, not to mention from its out and out removal. Multiple media reports have stated that Elms was the founder and that he was accused of trading sexual favors for positive reviews on the site and that people have said that when he didn't get it, he woudl threaten them with negative feedback that could ruin their trade. The key word here is that they were claims. Not fact, but claims. When it comes down to it, we can't eliminate sourced material simply because it would hurt your business. We're not in the market of editing out anything that would be financially harmful. Sometimes we do this if it's so dramatically harmful that it's beyond a reasonable doubt (such as if someone were to claim that he was eating babies or something to that extent), but generally speaking we don't censor or edit materials because it could hurt someone or something. I also want to warn you that even if by some chance the article is removed, stuff like this doesn't go away. There's no way to wipe the internet clean, especially when it has to do with anything sexual in tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is notable. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AfD is not cleanup. 151.74.125.146 (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't really about cleanup- I personally think that the article should be retained, but this was pretty much at the request of Treehousepark, who had been repeatedly trying to delete the article. They kept requesting its deletion via improperly placed speedy templates, so in all fairness I decided to open up an AfD for them in order to give the article a full range of editor opinions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 14 July 2013 (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.