Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogfart

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. I made the following judgment calls. Rossami (talk) 05:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The unsigned vote is discounted.
Old Right's vote discounted as a probable sockpuppet of Crevaner.
Kappa's comment interpreted as Delete.
Edean's vote discounted because "merge and delete" is not an allowable option under GFDL.

Dogfart

At best a neologism, but more likely advertising for a pornography web-site. --BM 03:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as porn sites go, this one is fairly notable. Weak delete for now, but I could be convinced there's a reason to have an article. Tuf-Kat 03:13, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete.Mikkalai 04:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've heard of this. It's marginally article-worthy. Keep for principle's sake, although the chance of a good article here seems rather small.
Delete as I don't think it's notable (as I have heard a fair amount about Internet porn and never heard of this, and merely hearing of something by itself wouldn't be notable, there'd have to be a solid reason, some major effect on the world) and it's specifically created to only be advertising, with nothing to say if the plug for the site is removed. DreamGuy 08:38, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete even the article says the term's exclusive to one site. Icundell 12:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Bad Ad. utcursch 12:25, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I would vote to keep if there was any evidence of even moderate ~~notability~~significance in its field. Kappa 17:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete nn Van Nuys slang. Wyss 22:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Very well known internet porn site. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Erring on the side of keep. This term doesn't appear to be exclusive as the article claims. Has anyone researched this? Why is Google returning over 598,000+ hits?? Notability is obviously understated. —RaD Man (talk) 10:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Do keep in mind that some of the results do end up literally regarding canine flatulence. =) --Andylkl 11:14, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Promotion for pornographic website and absolutely no encyclopedic content. --Andylkl 11:14, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Like it or not, pornography is a genuine subject and that brand of porn is rather notable. -- Judson 22:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep, it just needs to be expanded larger (no pun intended). -- Crevaner 00:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with points made above. -- Old Right 00:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- acting sysop:please see concerns expressed at User_talk:Dpbsmith#sockpuppetry& and ballot-box stuffing Michael Ward 07:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is not at all exclusive to that site. You can find dogfart at thousands of places across the web, as even a cursory Google search will display. Edit out the bit about its being exclusive and expand the rest. Dr Zen 01:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Merge with the Pornography article and delete. Edeans 05:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --BM 13:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
keep I strongly suggest we should keep this page.Don't be afraid to admit that interracial porn has been our culture.User:HansChung

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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.