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. Admittedly, by strict tally, this argument is on the verge of being "no consensus." Considering that the keep arguments fail to engage on matters of policy (deferring instead to personal beliefs regarding the site's quality), the strength of argument weighs in favoring of deletion. The complete lack of reliable sources decides the matter; but, I will happily userfy for anyone willing to search out such reliable sources. Xoloz 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article features no serious claim to (or proof for) notability for this website as required by WP:WEB. Although it has an Alexa ranking of 20,814, it does not appear to have any noteworthy Google coverage (516 hits, mostly from porn sites). Contested prod. Sandstein 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is one of the very few nice cartoon porn sites. Most of them are forgettable rubbish. JIP | Talk 09:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What bearing does this assertion have on the site's notability per WP:WEB? As far as I know, we do not judge our articles based on the merits of the subject, but on its notability. Sandstein 11:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many other, less professional cartoon porn sites steal images from WWOEC. WWOEC seems to be one of the few cartoon porn sites that creates porn pictures instead of simply propagating them. JIP | Talk 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, I'm sure, but that still isn't a notability criterium per WP:WEB - and do you happen to have any reliable sources for your assertions? Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think WWOEC has some notability in certain circles. Absolutely not mine. Not that there's anything wrong with it (actually some parts of WWOEC I think are actually pretty wrong - but its still a bit notable).--ZayZayEM 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, everything has "some notability in certain circles", if the circles are sufficiently narrow. We're looking for notability per WP:WEB, however, backed up by reliable sources and not by unsourced assertions. Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems notable. Google != WP deletion policy Cynical 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment these reasons being listed for keeping the article are not good. It really shouldn't be kept unless someone can find reliable sources showing that it meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. I couldn't find any in a quick google search, perhaps someone else can. --Xyzzyplugh 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, and, more importantly, no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V. Also, reads somewhat like WP:ADVERT. --Satori Son 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This AfD should be closed already. I would close it myself as "no consensus", but I have vested interest in the AfD myself, as a fan of WWOEC's art (well, some of it). JIP | Talk 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose relisting it, as there has been little policy-based discussion so far. Sandstein 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JIP | Talk 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Satori Son. No reliable sources are present to establish any notability. Without sources it fails WP:WEB, but I would be happy to change my opinion if some sources are provided. DrunkenSmurf 20:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sandstein. Neither notable nor verifiable. Valrith 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google gets alot of hits and the simple size of the community and the fact that it generates art work seems to make it notable for to me. It needs clean up but it doesn't need to get deleted. A solution could be to merge parts of the article and a link into an "erotic cartoons" type article if an appropriate one can be found. NeoFreak 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem is although it may seem notable, Wikipedia articles require sources to validate those claims. If you found some reliable sources that establish notability for this site from the google hits you are talking about, please add them. Again, I would be happy to change my opinion if you do that. DrunkenSmurf 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well Google bases its hits ranking off the number of webpages that link to the site which is why Google is often used as a yardstick of sorts to determine Notability. Like I said the sheer number of those hits and the number of participating artists is reason enough for me. Like I said though it's just my opinion. I'll see what I can't do to find some other legit sources to cite to back it up some more. NeoFreak 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. It does seem fairly popular, but I don't see any reliable third-party coverage that we could verifably base an encyclopedia article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "The primary criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Regardless of its supposed popularity, it shows no real evidence of that. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and Mr. Lefty. If we have nothing to make an article out of, we have no article. William Pietri 23:10, 12 September 2006 (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.