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. Neil ╦ 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No assertion of notability for this non-notable website, but both speedy and prod removed without improvements to the article. No sources provided in over a year and a half. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:V and WP:WEB. Valrith 12:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. I'm not sure what the reliable sources in this field are, so don't really know where to look, but I do know that this site is one of the most popular adult web sites around at the moment. I'm sure there is coverage, if you actually look for it in the right places. "About" 900,000 ghits on the site's name. JulesH 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A google search only returns results for this wikipedia article, the Cumfiesta website and forums posts (since this is an article about a website, a google search seems to be the best way to assess notability). There is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", therefore it fails WP:WEB and WP:N. —gorgan_almighty 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't seriously say the google search only turns up this article, the website, and forum posts. No way could you have searched through and viewed a million results! Excluding wikipedia and forums still returns well over half a million results: search Mathmo ^Talk 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GHITS is a notoriously weak argument, for or against. Sidatio 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. nonnotable. Mukadderat 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notable sources found, and there's still no encyclopedic article after a year and a half of existence. According to Alexa [1], it's not exactly "one of the most popular adult web sites" either. Add to that the article reads like advertising, and you have a valid candidate for deletion. Sidatio 15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, looks like my info is a little out of date. Look at the 5 year trend graph on the page you linked. Trying to estimate what the rank was is a little tricky on that logarithmic scale, but I'd guess it peaked at an alexa rank of about 300 in the first half of 2003. That's not exactly a trivial rank. JulesH 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial? No. Speculative, out of date and misrepresentative of its current popularity? Definitely. Look, I'm all for keeping an article (pornographic or not) provided it can pass muster with the policies and guidelines, but this one doesn't after over a year and a half. It still reads like an advert, has no sources outside of the website itself, and has little to no notability. Sorry, but if you ask me, this article is a monkey past its prime. Sidatio 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, you'd think that a site that peaked near #300 would have some coverage outside of adultwebmasterpro, maybe even AVN. Neither. I guess they shot their wad ... --Dhartung | Talk 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I mentioned in my edit summary of the article, searching Google Scholar turns up a result. Published in The Journal of Men's Studies. This along with my other comments, gives able support for keeping this article. Mathmo ^Talk 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - into an article on Nastydollars if anything. Nastydollars is one of the biggest porn sites on the internet, Alex search says it's the 229th top website. --Philip Laurence 01:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added/corrected basic facts using a site which should count as a relatively reliable source for this kind of topic, and added the scholarly article by Dr Ian Cook of Murdoch University as further reading, which according to the abstract examines nine such web sites in detail, including cumfiesta.com. An article about the site owner Nasty Dollars or rather its parent company RK Netmedia, Inc is desirable, though. Regards, High on a tree 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one notation of further reading and one review from a website that ranks even lower than the subject website does not an article make. Where's the history of the website? What's its notability? There's nothing here, and if it took a year and a half to add these two items, I can't see much coming out of this one - no pun intended. Sorry, but my vote still stands. Sidatio 03:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is not (Alexa?)rank. The website I used claims to be "the largest pay-site database and review site" and makes a relatively neutral, fact based impression - especially for this kind of topic.

It is true that the article from the Journal of Men's Studies has not been used as a source yet; this will have to be done by somebody with access to the full paper. It only came out about half a year ago anyway. However, the fact that the site has been covered en detail in this article means that it satisfies the General notability guideline.

Regards, High on a tree 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the biggest problem here, though - it DOESN'T meet general notability guidelines. You've got one review from one website and an article that no one can seem to read to verify your claim that the site is covered "in detail". That's definitely not significant coverage. I'm sorry, but there just doesn't seem to be any criteria here to keep it. The only good this article seems to serve is as a linking page to cumfiesta.com, and that's just not what Wikipedia is. Sidatio 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to assume that WP:RS only allows sources which are freely available on the Internet. Sorry, open access is a great idea and I too am hoping that it will take over the world, but sometimes working on an encyclopedia still requires spending money on literature or visiting a library. In this case it is not even necessary, however - to verify my claim you would just have needed to visit the URLs given in my edit comments. At [2] (MetaPress), you can read the abstract of the paper:

This article is an examination of nine pornographic Web sites. [...] The pornography presented on these Web sites is first examined in terms of the way that it manifests important continuities with pornography delivered in other ways. [etc.]

At [3] you can read in Google Scholar's excerpt from the article about the Web sites discussed in this article: MILF [Mothers I’d Like to Fuck] Hunter, 8th Street Latinas, Mike’s Apartment, Cumfiesta, Captain Stabbin ....

(I agree that the content of the article is still less than ideal, but at least the basic information needed for a stub is sourced now.)

Regards, High on a tree 04:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem here isn't whether or not the article is open-source, and I apologize if that's how you took it. The problem is you seem to have only two sources, and in one of those sources, it's not exactly clear to what extent Cumfiesta is discussed. Is it significant coverage, or just a passing mention? Even if we assume there is significant coverage to be had, we have one instance of coverage in a obscure journal and one instance of a review on a obscure website that isn't a reliable reference anyway. To me, this doesn't add up to notability.

We have here an article that has been alive for a year and a half. In that time, we have only been able to establish two weak notable sources, and a reasonably exhaustive search doesn't turn up any more. I like porn as much as the next guy (well, maybe not as much as some!), but to me, that's simply not enough. Sidatio 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are unsure of the degree of coverage in the journal (obscure?? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it obscure, sounds more like a weasel word. Would you call Biomicrofluidics an obscure journal too?), yet you will assume the worst that it is merely a trivial mention? Even so, it does not appear to be a trival, listing/directory style, of mention in the journal. Mathmo ^Talk 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're getting at. Biomicrofluidics is an AIP journal, whereas The Journal of Men's Studies is from a site that describes itself as "about a small independent publisher dedicated to the dissemination of the work of men's studies scholars." It's apples and oranges, but I digress. If you don't like the term, fine - I'll strike it. There's still only one source from a journal of undetermined relevance and a review from a website that has its own issues as noted by gorgan_almighty. The topic still doesn't have enough notable sources, in my view.

Trust me - it's not obscure to me simply because "I haven't heard about it". That would be incredibly naive. Sidatio 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The thebestporn.com website referenced in the article appears to be an all-inclusive database of porn sites, with no stipulation on notability. It is therefore not a reliable reference for asserting notability. —gorgan_almighty 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in my opinion, there's no justification of notability (directories don't count, for fairly obvious reasoning) and not likely to be any. SamBC 03:05, 6 August 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.