Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XVideos (2nd nomination)

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 keep. When considering the votes at the earlier AfD, there is a clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XVideos

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

No credible indication the article meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Limited evidence that previous AfD covered the issue properly.A Guy into Books (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Kept at AfD as snow keep just 3 days ago. This nomination is rather silly. --Michig (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Afd three days ago and it does not cover WP:CORPDEPTH at all. Infact it was only Snowed because it had been improved from when it was nominated. But i still see no indication it meets notability criteria. Despite the arguments that "it has a lot of views" or that "searching for sources in not work friendly", the existing sources are based on other issues, where Xvideos gets merely trivial mentions. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I'm trying to assume good faith but it feels insane to me that the nominator is just ignoring the consensus that was established. Per WP:AFDHOWTO: "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." This should have been brought up at the article's talk page for discussion instead of a crazy renomination like this. Nomader (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD does not form a consensus because it was Snowed, therefore no consensus can be construed from the discussion. The discussion didn't even cover CORPDEPTH anyway. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- [1], [2], [3] I've pulled three sources at random here that we're discussed in the previous AFD. How do any of these fail WP:CORPDEPTH? Nomader (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

only the first meets CORPDEPTH criteria, 2 & 3 are both trivial mentions, 2 focuses on the internet traffic of all porn sites, 3 focuses on all porn being blocked, both mention xvideos in passing but do not give any depth of coverage. thus you still need two more proper references. If this wasnt about everyone's favorite incognito bookmark it would be no question deleted. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of these sources-- the second article goes into depth about how XVideos is the largest porn website, and the third I listed as it's similar to dozens and dozens of articles that talk about XVideos being blocked in reliable sources. Although I understand where you're coming from and personally, this isn't what I came to Wikipedia to write about, but articles about XVideos being the largest porn site in the entire internet would seem to allow the article to easily pass CORPDEPTH. Nomader (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking to my (probably biased, but who isnt?) argument and disagreeing again. the second article goes into depth about how XVideos is the largest porn website perhaps, but it is still only mentioning the site briefly, the main topic of the article is a report which does not focus on xvideos. I could go on about the number of sites blocked by that block and similar, and the fact that again, it is only providing a mention of xvideos, no in depth coverage of the business. For context, over at another Afd I am arguing the other way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Biscoe‎ there are several articles giving similar depth being totally dismissed. so I am not being out of place on insisting on something better than what you have at the moment. Obviously i understand that it has alot of traffic, but lot of visitors does not indicate notability. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fair points-- and I apologize for calling you 'biased' in the edit summary, that was pretty terrible language. Let me make a full review of sources this evening and see what I can come up with on my end over here. Nomader (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and a ping to @Aguyintobooks:-- real life is becoming pressing again and I'm not going to be on Wikipedia as much. I've looked at a bunch of sources before, but I may not have time to pull them for this before this AfD comes to a close. Apologies in advance if I can't. Nomader (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is web content, not a company or organization. The relevant guideline is WP:NWEB, especially WP:WEBCRIT. WP:CORPDEPTH is part of WP:CORP, which applies to organizations and is meant to hold organizations to a higher standard than GNG. The sourcing of this article is still not the best at first glance, but WP:CORPDEPTH is a misapplication of guidelines. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 September 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.