Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XVideos

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 snow keep. To be fair, the version I nominated was rubbish but users have since improved it but it's clear that this nomination should be withdrawn. Thanks in particular to Nomader who did much of the improvement. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 16:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XVideos

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

TL;DR: delete per WP:NWEB, WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG.

For the benefit of doubt, all the links that I provide to back up my argument are safe-for-work.

I am approaching this nomination with some caution because I may be tarred and feathered if not. Yes, this article is the most-viewed stub per the weekly ORES ratings. Yes, it’s ranked 50 on Alexa’s list of most popular websites. Does it meet our criteria for inclusion? I would say not.

This and this are the only coverage the website has received in independent, reliable sources. The first one fails single-event notability standards, because it’s just about a firefighter falling to his death whilst trying to remove pornographic images from the website from a hoarding and the second one is about someone wanting pornographic videos to include the Indian National Anthem which isn’t subject to in-depth, meaningful coverage. The petition by the proposer for this measure got 66 signatures so cannot be construed as notable in itself.

The only policy-based counter-argument against this nomination is per the web content notability guidelines. However, such an argument would be misplaced an incorrect because nowhere in these guidelines does it say that being the 50th most-visited website confers any notability at all. The other argument would be “but it’s popular, look at the ORES statistics”. Well, people may visit the article a lot but it is nothing than a mere directory entry which says it’s a website which provides pornography which the reader could probably guess from looking at their website. In other words, it’s not really an article.

DrStrauss talk 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere that indicates "most visited websites in the world" are presumed notable. Maybe the lack of coverage could be the result of it being a pornographic site. I haven't gone through yet but I'll see if I can work something out and decide my vote — Za wl 15:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I've not come across such a guideline. There is WP:ALEXA but that is more a rule-of-thumb test which is applied to articles with content worth saving. And Pornhub, for example, is a pornographic site with significant media coverage. DrStrauss talk 16:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, this is definitely going to be one of the more interesting keep !votes that I've ever done. Per WP:PORN's sources section, XVideos is covered in a number of reliable sources that cover the industry (note that they're specifically reliable for adult industry news, NOT just general RS's-- I could see an oppose coming down saying that the sites themselves aren't reliable, but consensus so far has established them as such). I've listed a number of reliable sources below:
- From AVN: [1], [2], [3]
- From XBiz: [4], [5]
- I don't think there's any other rationale for deleting this article that I can see, and I therefore !vote keep. Just a note here as well that AVN and XBiz are probably not SFW for anyone reviewing sources. Nomader (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a note here on the links I gave-- almost all of them have to do with legal stuff. There's a few articles that I found as well that mention it as "world-famous" or "one of the largest" sites but it's always a side-mention. I specifically chose these sources to address the notes brought up by DrStrauss. Nomader (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anything numbers 4 and 5 could just be used as citations on cybersquatting. XVideos isn't the main topic of either of them per se, just an example. As for 1, 2 and 3, they do constitute coverage but the only coverage they give is to numerous lawsuits brought against the company, and their inclusion without significant other coverage would violate the undue weight principle. DrStrauss talk 17:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. There's also coverage from these sources as well though ([6], [7]), the first one describing it as "currently the largest adult site" in 2012 and the other one expanding on another article from AVN. There's also the book Pink 2.0: Encoding Queer Cinema on the Internet which discusses Xvideos at length and was published by the Indiana University Press ([8]). I don't think it's going to win any awards for 'best article of the year', but I think that XVideos definitely meets WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding to this list-- The Economist also did a write-up on the state of the porn industry and talked about an attempted acquisition of XVideos by Mindgeek ([9]). It's a somewhat passing mention but it should be usable to flesh out the article. Nomader (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Searches for XVideo at Google Scholar yields about 325 results & about 92,300 results at Google News. "Just How Big Are Porn Sites?". extremetech.com. stated in 2012 that "Xvideos, the largest porn site on the web with 4.4 billion page views per month, is three times the size of CNN or ESPN, and twice the size of Reddit."

Why are we even debating notability at this point when it is clear that this article needs to be expanded beyond stub status? Because I often edit from a work computer (those Google searches done on a break from my personal notebook, BTW), I stay away from any sources for this article. Many of the edits over the history, when not vandalizing it or reverting vandalism, seem to keep trimming it down, hence one reason why it is so paltry. It is clear to me that the problem here is not a dearth of sources or notability, but the lack of editing dedicated to this topic.

Peaceray (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're debating notability because I have written a lengthy and detailed rationale which challenges the article's encyclopedic notability. Neither WP:NWEB nor WP:GNG say simple page views or search engine hits confer notability. Your keep !vote appears to be on the grounds that there are lots of hits or page views and doesn't analyse them in-depth. Sorry if this sounds crotchety, it's not intended to be. DrStrauss talk 21:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your rational & disagree with its conclusion. There is more to XVideos in potential sources than just the Alexa ranking. Again I return to the quote that I posted: "Xvideos, the largest porn site on the web with 4.4 billion page views per month, is three times the size of CNN or ESPN, and twice the size of Reddit." I fail to see what is unnotable about being the world's largest porn site when it is considerably larger than either CNN, ESPN, or Reddit, & ranked in the top 50 websites.

Regarding your statement about the two sources appearing in independent media, well, the one about the firefighter falling to his death seems to be negative cherry picking. Having just provided an independent source not in your set of two, I am highly skeptical that one cannot find substantially more in the >300 results from Google Scholar & >92,000 results from Google News. Coverage may not be great for XVideos, but I am sure that someone with time & unfettered access can eventually find plenty. Peaceray (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and recommend the nom review WP:BEFORE next time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stub needs to be expanded, not deleted. Looking through some of the press, it looks like the Indian government even _targeted it by name in a censorship run. AlfredRennie (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable + arguments above. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AlfredRennie and a flawed nomination that cites a one event rule which applies to biographies not organizations or websites, and then inexplicably cites another event which shows coverage of more than one event. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just created a history section and added a lot of sources in. I think this is becoming WP:SNOWBALL. Nomader (talk) 04:23, 31 August 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.