Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welivetogether.com

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. --Rhobite 21:49, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Welivetogether.com[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is an advertisement for a porn website. Tkessler 06:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Wish I could speedy it, but doesn't quite fit the requirements. – Clockwork Soul 06:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Gamaliel 07:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Not notable Longhair 07:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence that this is a notable website. Andrewa 08:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Blatant spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 13:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete as spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Thinly veiled advertising. Kosebamse 15:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not against notable porn sites having articles, and this site is fairly notable, but the article as written is just an ad. Do we really need a description of the disclaimer page? 23skidoo 15:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'd argue that popularity doesn't neccisarily make notibility. This article is Exhibit A.--InShaneee 20:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree it reads like an advertisement. Articles about porn sites are not inherently bad, but the site has to be pretty special to be notable. This one certainly isn't. 85.76.152.179 05:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - David Gerard 15:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.