Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MET-Art

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. The only persuasive Keep argument (from a policy point of view) was from Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs), but that was enough. The second bullet point of WP:WEBCRIT says all you need to do is win a well-known and independent award, and the footnote says, Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability. They do have one win, and a number of other nominations. Personally, I'm not too impressed with AVN and XBIZ as sources, but we do have articles on them. If they're notable enough for us to have an article, I think we need to consider that they're reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MET-Art

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

Article about a pornography website, with little evidence of significant reliable secondary coverage about it. It was subject to an AfD in 2006, and kept based on its Alexa internet ranking. I don't believe the current Wikipedia notability criteria consider this to be a sufficient reason any longer (and we all know what the popular internet searches are for these days, don't we?!). Popularity doesn't translate into notability. Fails current Wikipedia notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Granted the article needs expansion, but we all know this is subject to available sources. I will see what I can find and invite others to do so. I do know (and will work to substantiate this) that the site is unique as its considered a crossover between the artistic nude modeling and the adult entertainment communities/industries. Furthermore, with upwards of 7,000 or more views per month of this article, there is clearly interest in the subject. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is a unique website, then proof is needed. After all, this website is a recent phenomenon so online sources should be easily available (if they exist). It just looks like another pornography subscription site to me! Sionk (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, at first glance and without any knowledge of the adult industry, I can easily see how a person would think this. But after digging just a bit, there's much more to the site which has spawned a much larger company. So far I've only approached it from the Adult angle, but I need to do searches from a photography perspective as well as a general art angle. By the way, it currently may well look like "another pornography subscription site", but its one of the first and has quite an influence on the development of such sites as well as the rest of the Internet since the Porn industry has been progressive in its technology development especially when it comes to the web. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We stopped keeping articles through assertions of notability sometime around 2006 so unless you found some sources to support your argument you are pretty much 8 years behind. Oh and the stuff you have added isn't RS, thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sourcing. No assertion of notability beyond the ALEXA ranking, which isn't enough to meet GNG standards. Of the nine references, five go to the site itself, two are based on PR material, and two are copies of the same litigation document. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was the subject of a major cybersquatting dispute with Met-Life. See [1] and [2]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably useful to expand our article on cybersquatting but I'm not seeing a wikipedia article on METART out of this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unimpressive sourcing that falls short of GNG, Arguments to keep based on assertion and non-RS should be discarded as so 2006. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:WEBCRIT. MET-Art has received several AVN and XBIZ award nominations over the years in addition to an actual win from XBIZ. I have added the awards and nominations to the article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2014 (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.