Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pornographic video-sharing websites

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of pornographic video-sharing websites

List of pornographic video-sharing websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Apparently fails to meet WP:LISTN, also WP:NOTDIR. I first tagged this for notability in July 2013. Thanks to everyone for not removing the tag - however, apparently no one with an interest in the article is attempting to address the concerns either. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article Porn 2.0 is about a similar topic, so a merge there might be justified. The list contains by my reckoning 7 items with Wikipedia articles, which is at the fringes of too-short but I think shorter lists have survived. It would help if the AfD proposal explained how the article violates policies, rather than just listing policies (see WP:JUSTAPOLICY). --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the list of websites is dubious and not proven (LISTN), and it appears like a directory of potential sites (especially when considering the non-notable external links which were included). The nomination doesn't need to expand on that IMHO, and AFAICS was made in accordance with WP:DEL#REASON (which is policy). -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the individual sites seem to be notable, and they probably form a natural category, and Porn 2.0 includes links showing the subject might be notable as a whole. It wasn't clear whether you believed the topic of pornographic video-sharing websites was non-notable, whether you believed it wasn't a distinct category, whether the sites on the list are not notable, whether you objected to the format of the list (with weblinks), or whether you simply objected to the presence of non-notable sites on the list. If the non-notable external links are your main concern, they can be removed without deleting. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My thinking is that the a list topic may not be considered notable if it has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Non-notable items can be included, if independently/reliably sourced and external links aren't included within the list itself. But if the group of sites hasn't been discussed in sources then we shouldn't have a standalone list on said group. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The green links in the body of the list need to go, at a minimum — blatantly promotional in intent. Carrite (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This appears to be list of sites where copyrighted content can be illegally downloaded, thereby violating policy about COPYVIO links. If kept, all the links to sites without articles should be expunged. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have removed the entries without articles. Otherwise the list is a link farm with copyright issues noted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:Erotica_and_pornography_websites. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a sensible suggestion, and would eliminate the linkspam. I realise that per WP:BEFORE, this could have been boldly done without initiating the discussion here, but I wasn't aware of that category, and a redirect can be a legitimate outcome of a deletion discussion. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Strikethrough, per DavidLeighEllis. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per Stuartyeates. The category has many of the same websites. An alternative might be to create a subcategory of pornographic video-sharing websites, but I'm not sure if there's any support/willingness to do the work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per User:Stuartyeates and User:Colapeninsula--seems like a non notable, promotional list that would be best redirected.
• Delete per nom. We don't redirect to categories from mainspace. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Couldn't any video sharing site be used to share pornography?--Coin945 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technologically, yes; but some (e.g., YouTube) have policies against this, as do some countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia) in which they operate. ––Agyle (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia not being a web directory and no substantial improvement after being tagged for several months. The article Porn 2.0 discusses the same topic in an encyclopedic format and covers and compares several sites. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The list, even if properly maintained, adds very little that isn't covered by Porn 2.0. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2014 (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.