Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet Set

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Set

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

None of the sources demonstrate the notability of this fetish magazine.

[1] is a listing on a self-published website about censorship, which provides an indiscriminate list of "Every books and magazine that has been banned by the Australian Censor since 2006. The eventual aim is to cover items pre-2006."
NSFW is the magazine's own website.
[2] is a promotional site for an indie band, and doesn't mention Wet Set.

I looked for other sources and found only this passing mention by Vice. The article was kept at AfD in 2007 because the magazine and website had been nominated for (but did not win) 2004 Australian Adult Industry Awards. [3]. The AAIA are based on self-nomination: "To nominate yourself or another party, simply fill out the form below. Remember that these details will be entered onto our web page and is a great way of selling yourself." Cheers, gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this piss-poor article, per nominator. The account behind it appears to have had a particular interest in this fetish; a glance at their contribs turns up other articles and redirects that may need editing or flushing. (I also now wish I hadn't logged on during lunch.) -Crossroads- (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You're in for a difficult job if you want to find any notability for this pissy little mag. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No nontrivial independent sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i was going to say a definite "delete" like the above editors but am curious about the history of this article, looking at its history we see that it was created on 26 June 2007, and yet, there was an afd (link on the talkpage) where the article was nominated on 15 july 2007, and "kept" on 20 July 2007 (see here), so was it subsequently deleted against consensus and than recreated? just wondering, and whether the original article had any sources that may point to notability? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um? July comes after June. Am I missing something? Where was the deletion? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, have struck comment, as circuitry obviously misfiring... Coolabahapple (talk)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2019 (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.