Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang Bus

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. Clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bus

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

Why list a porn site that, by many contributors addmission, has a clearly mysoginistic format and, also quite clearly acts as advertising for the website? Why do other mysoginistic porn sites not have wikipedia entries? What is the point of entering an article about every controversion porn site which is dedicated to humiliating women? Mondoallegro (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate the general notability of this particular site. Ultimately, this discussion has to be about this site, and not whether similar websites do or don't have Wikipedia articles. Bang Bus has been covered enough (and yes, to a great extent, for some controversies involving it) that it is notable enough for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, it's certainly notable and has been covered, but so is Ghetto Gaggers, so if the decision is to keep this site I will create an article for Ghetto Gaggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sounds like the nominator does not like the site which is the subject of the article. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a basis for deleting an article, if it has evidence of notability. Nor is "IFYOUKEEPTHISIWILLCREATEANOTHERARTICLE." The article cites references such as a 2004 Miami New Times article which calls it a "porn giant" and says it "often gets credit for being groundbreakers in the world of Internet amateur porn." There is a ref to a CommonDreams story with significant coverage. One ref is a story by TV channel 10, WPLG. The site won several awards from "Adult Video News" per the refs cited. These seems sufficient to make a notability argument. There are a couple of dead link refs in addition which should be fixed to see what they offer. Edison (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may not necessarily like the website myself, but I'm going to consider its article based on the merits of the article and not the nature of the website. The quotes that Edison has pulled above show that, regardless of what one thinks about the website, it's notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the miami times article in fact is a critique of the site, asking questions about the cost of this type of entertainment. Also, most of the other references are either from AVN or adult review sites, hardly notable sources of information. Many sites which deptict sexual abuse have been nominated by AVN, so what? What makes this site worthy of wikipedia article?Mondoallegro (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Satisfies WP:WEB and WP:NF with industry award wins. The GNews hit demonstrate notability according to the general guidelines. Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on misogyny and misogynistic people. We can have one on a "misogynistic" website. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's any comfort to the nominator, I strongly doubt that Wikipedia generates a meaningful amount of traffic to this or any other famous porn website. Its popularity may be slightly depressing but it's entirely independent of Wikipedia's article. 173.177.160.116 (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is any comfort to the nominator, I do not like the site, and think that its operators are misogynistic jerks, and that the videos are poorly filmed. Edison (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a) the article is poorly written and mostly opinion, not fact; b) the subject of the article is not notable. And yes, I recognize that nearly everyone will reject 'a' as a cause for deletion and argue that 'b' is false. Eh. I say our standards aren't high enough. Valrith (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I grant that misogony or hate-speech is no grounds for deleting an entry since wikipedia (rightly) covers one of the most notorious white supremecist groups on earth (Stormfront) and they're pretty much the epitome of hate speech, but in this case the article in question needs more clarification and more thoughtful critique included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. Nom has admitted in comments that the site is notable, and misrepresented sources. Pointy nomination based solely on noms dislike for subject.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2010 (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.