Deletion of Wifey's World (3rd nomination)

Comment: AfD is not cleanup, and the subject clearly passes  and  (it would be sufficient to read the previous AfDs). If there are a couple of sentences that sounds promotional this is just an editorial issue and does not require deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:GNG)

Comment: Site has historical importance, and there has been enough press coverage to meet .  If you're concerned about the tone/promotional nature, then deletion is not the proper avenue: the subject is notable even if the article is flawed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: It seems like there are a plethora of articles from |reliable sources that haven't been used in the article yet. Among them (including those currently in the article): http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1998/09/14784  http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/1104sr-pornography1104insideZ8.html http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2006/11/06/31612-plan-for-porn-web-site-in-scottsdale-under-fire/ http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1107necoalition1107.html http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1104porn1104.html http://www.salon.com/2002/06/19/semen/ http://business.avn.com/articles/video/Face-to-Face-The-Husband-Wife-Team-Behind-CumOnDagny-com-39003.html http://business.avn.com/articles/video/Doubt-Cast-on-Anti-Porn-Coalition-28946.html http://business.avn.com/articles/video/AVNONLINE-ON-THE-RISE-200606-RealityWife-com-49443.html. I suppose that one could make an argument that a number of these sources are passing mentions, but ''Wired''{{'}}s profile of the site along with the plethora of other mentions mean that a quality article could easily be written if an editor put their mind to it. From reading the articles, this site appears to have been a leader (the first off the boat as it were) in amateur pornography
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)