Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clips4Sale

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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clips4Sale

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Some passing mentions in articles about amateur porn, but no indepth coverage of the company/website. Kleuske (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as site passes WP:NWEB. Site is mentioned in many WP:RS sources as oldest and major in its field like by Billboard, by TorontoSun, by The Sun I know its tabloid, by Hollywood Reporter and others. It is expected that there will sources (Fetish magazines) enough for full fledge article. No need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH when it is a website. Störm (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being as the subject at hand here may and could have the potential to expand further. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rated just above 1500 in Alexa rank and more sources given above by Storm, this is clearly not vanity website. And websites are not bound by WP:CORPDEPTH that's for companies not websites. It does meet WP:NWEB guideline because of this coverage [1], in magazine, [2], in HW reporter [3]. These sources and the one I added below (with many from others here), they definitely established WP:GNG, as it is widely recognized by independent sources –Ammarpad (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources offered above are not convincing. For example, the extent of Toronto Sun coverage is this:

"According to The Guardian, commercial porn site Clips4Sale offered 100 different fetish categories in 2005. By 2015 the same site offers an eye-popping 946 different kinks."

Such passing and trivial mentions do not meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:WEBCRIT, so it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great irony in the quote you used since it points to an extensive coverage by the Guardian of the site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irony indeed, but we should WP:AGF, he didn't access the article. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the Guardian article, and it's not convincing for notability of the site. The article analyses the clips on the site, but not the site itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- as per above, it is very popular. Also do we have some type of standards for notability of websites?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: Yes, guideline WP:NWEB. –Ammarpad (talk)

Delete Another website, another business, no big deal. People visit the website and like their content, it's not our value here. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to understand what you mean by this? Störm (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I endorsed this question by Störm and I think WP:ITSCRUFT apply here –Ammarpad (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage apart from the ones I already gave above; [4] and [5], another from Mel magazine [6]. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The first one looks like a blog. Why do you think that it is a reliable source, Ammarpad? The second Billboard source is a passing mention and nowhere near significant coverage. The third one from Mel magazine is not really in depth, but is perhaps a bit better than the first two. Is Mel really a reliable source? I am unconvinced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I agree some are not indepth coverage but this is not peculiar to this article. And some indeed have content beyond mere mention. Also I didn't support keeping because of my sources alone, two users have already provided more sources and reason above, I took that into consideration too. For Melmag source, I can't say it is RS directly, but also cannot say it is not. From its content, I believe it's not joke magazine, and it can be removed any time it is proved unreliable/unnecessary. In addition, it is not yet used to support any exceptional claim that may urgently require multiple RS or removal. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, the references provided fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, this is not company and not organization. Both of your cited guidelines don't apply. It seems you're obsessed with these shortcuts. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources found on Google News (Can't provide individual cites because of laptop issues) - There seems to be some evidence of notability and so by a bare inch I would say it meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and ManyVids (and any others in the same field of clip-selling) into a single article on the field. I don't think these are individually notable, but I think the field of business is, and that these are prominent examples within the field. bd2412 T 03:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with lack of convincing delete rationale, I still think this should be kept. Described by the UK's Guardian as

"..one of the leading commercial porn sites on the web."
Related coverage of above in Spanish
Also this. The last one is not deep coverage, but the sum of the above sources, Guardian's coverage and the sources present in the article are enough to show meeting WP:GNG and WP:NWEB.–Ammarpad (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reviewing the Guardian and Mel Magazine articles in addition to AVN [7] plus several mentions in through sources found in Google News plus the mention in Porn Studies[8]. Yeah, this passes WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a advirtisememt. Fail to covegege WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 11:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only coverage of substance in the article is the Guardian and the AVN interview of the founder, using only his first name. If this were truly a leading site, you'd expect to see more. The other articles are just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 20 December 2017 (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.