324:- new article is well-sourced. definitely needs work and expansion but that isn't grounds for deletion. also nominator doesn't give any reasons for deletion other than "it was deleted before". Call for deletion should address the actual content of the article as it is now. Previous deletions claimed it was non-notable but that has been disproven by sourcing so the reason for the previous AFDs no longer apply.
418:
Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via
Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted.
253:
unless someone comes up with a much better explanation for this nomination. "Having previously been deleted" is NOT a deletion criterion. There are plenty of reliable sources establishing this site's notability. What are we talking about here? Does anyone have an actual reason to delete this
188:
relevant to the applicable guidelines. As you say, the site is notable, and has received substantial media attention, because of the unique way it approaches the porn question. That is "notable" for
Knowledge (XXG)'s purposes, more than just getting a lot of visitors.
312:- it's not a recreation of deleted content if DRV overturns the deletion. There has been plenty of media coverage of this organization - it's obviously notable. When I saw the DRV, I was scratching my head really wondering why there was any question. --
419:
This clause does not apply in user space, to content undeleted per undeletion policy, or if the prior deletions were proposed or speedy deletions, although in this last case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply.
281:
should be based on
Knowledge (XXG) policy. "I want to" is not a reason to delete an article. Consensus is reconsidered all the time, and it looks like some good points were made at DRV. Which Knowledge (XXG) policy does this article violate?
202:
Deletion Review is subject to the same sort of consensus as AfD - anyone who participated in the initial AfD was welcome to weigh in on the DR as well, so it's not like some outside force sandbagged the community - they are also the community.
263:
The DRV closed as "relist at editorial discretion." I'm listing it because I want to, in my discretion. I don't like the idea that the community consensus can be labeled as "wrong" at DRV and overturned.
160:, it is only notable because of the unique way it approaches the porn question. It is in no way notable in any other sense, ie there is no real fanbase or people who regularly visit the site.
111:
392:
Well if you are going to recommend something but aren't going to do the research required to ensure you are actually following procedure, allow me to do the research for you. From
52:
149:
145:
122:
but
Deletion Review (also linked from talk page) decided that they could overturn community consensus based on their own reading of Knowledge (XXG)'s rules.
141:
137:
433:
for this reason are invalid. If anyone who has voted for speedy delete has another reason for claiming speedy delete applies please put it forth.
49:
17:
476:
notability has been met. Unless someone can demonstrate that there are significantly more notable examples of websites for the
84:
79:
484:
437:
387:
378:
374:
I don't want to look it up. It's speedy deletion criteria to speedy something that's a recreation of a deleted article.
369:
352:
340:
328:
316:
304:
286:
268:
258:
245:
225:
207:
193:
164:
126:
88:
499:
36:
152:. I would argue the site is non-notable: while it has been covered in enough sources to satisfy the requirements of
71:
456:
477:
452:
498:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
119:
75:
375:
349:
240:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
393:
358:
298:
There's no reason to delete. It is N, as proven by the national coverage, and now sourced.
184:
provide "detail on (the) website's achievements, impact or historical significance," which
174:
222:
480:(religious specific websites would be better) than this is the most newsworthy of them.
336:
Article meets requirements for notability, no valid reason for deletion has been given.
434:
429:. Thus speedy deletion doesn't apply as the deletion was overturned. Thus any votes to
397:
384:
366:
337:
325:
283:
255:
204:
190:
157:
153:
459:
might be more appropriate in the long-term since not all views are anti-pornography.
455:, which has a section on Christian views regarding pornography, though a new article
265:
161:
123:
234:
177:) do not say anything about fanbase or number of regular visitors. The sources in
105:
481:
463:
313:
383:
Not when that recreation was a result of a deletion review. Which this WAS.
178:
67:
58:
427:
This clause does not apply (...) to content undeleted per undeletion policy
300:
348:
always deleted and recreated. Article needs salting of all variations.
361:
applies to this article? That goes for anyone who has advocated
492:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
173:
I note that the specific guidelines on notability of web sites (
118:
Article previously deleted 3 times at AfD (see links from
101:
97:
93:
136:
Just to clarify, the links to the previous Afds are
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
502:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
223:Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
485:04:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
438:16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
388:08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
379:08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
370:20:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
353:20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
341:13:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
329:02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
317:18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
305:04:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
287:08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
269:02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
259:23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
246:21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
226:21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
208:07:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
194:16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
165:02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
148:, and the deletion review is
127:20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
457:Christianity and pornography
519:
478:Anti-pornography movement
453:Anti-pornography movement
53:02:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
495:Please do not modify it.
277:at your discretion, but
32:Please do not modify it.
48:, defaulting to keep.
346:Speedy Delete and salt
221:as recreated content.
425:Note please the line
468:
467:2007-02-27 05:17Z
156:and perhaps even
510:
497:
470:
466:
357:Honestly, which
243:
237:
109:
91:
61:(4th nomination)
34:
518:
517:
513:
512:
511:
509:
508:
507:
506:
500:deletion review
493:
482:John Vandenberg
460:
241:
235:
82:
66:
63:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
516:
514:
505:
504:
488:
487:
471:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
423:
422:
421:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
390:
376:SakotGrimshine
350:SakotGrimshine
343:
331:
319:
307:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
248:
228:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
199:
198:
197:
196:
168:
167:
116:
115:
62:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
515:
503:
501:
496:
490:
489:
486:
483:
479:
475:
472:
469:
465:
458:
454:
450:
447:
446:
439:
436:
432:
431:speedy delete
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
399:
395:
391:
389:
386:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
372:
371:
368:
364:
360:
356:
355:
354:
351:
347:
344:
342:
339:
335:
332:
330:
327:
323:
320:
318:
315:
311:
308:
306:
303:
302:
297:
294:
288:
285:
280:
276:
273:Sure you can
272:
271:
270:
267:
262:
261:
260:
257:
252:
249:
247:
244:
238:
232:
231:Speedy delete
229:
227:
224:
220:
219:speedy delete
217:
216:
209:
206:
201:
200:
195:
192:
187:
183:
180:
176:
172:
171:
170:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
134:
133:
132:
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
121:
120:the talk page
113:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
86:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
64:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
494:
491:
473:
461:
448:
430:
426:
417:
362:
345:
333:
321:
310:Obvious keep
309:
299:
295:
278:
274:
250:
230:
218:
185:
181:
117:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
251:Strong keep
322:keep AGAIN
233:Per nom. ↔
435:Improbcat
398:PubliusFL
385:Plymouths
367:PubliusFL
338:Improbcat
326:Plymouths
284:PubliusFL
256:PubliusFL
254:article?
205:Plymouths
191:PubliusFL
179:Xxxchurch
68:Xxxchurch
59:Xxxchurch
365:delete.
279:deletion
266:Nardman1
162:Nardman1
124:Nardman1
112:View log
400:posted:
236:NMajdan
85:protect
80:history
363:speedy
275:relist
175:WP:WEB
146:AFD #3
142:AFD #2
138:AFD #1
89:delete
464:Quarl
449:Merge
396:that
314:BigDT
106:views
98:watch
94:links
16:<
474:Keep
334:Keep
296:keep
242:talk
158:WP:N
154:WP:V
150:here
102:logs
76:talk
72:edit
451:to
394:CSD
359:CSD
301:DGG
110:– (
186:is
182:do
144:,
140:,
104:|
100:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
78:|
74:|
462:—
239:•
114:)
108:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.