Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invidious

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheInsatiableOne (talk | contribs) at 07:42, 28 June 2023 (→Invidious). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Invidious

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Invidious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, non-primary coverage appears limited to tech blogs of dubious reliability and listicles. signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Dawnbails (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Invidious is backend of quite a few projects such as YouTube clients, Privacy redirects.Greatder —(talk) 04:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Keep Invidious is a valuable open-source project that is used by many people. As stated by another user, it is a frequent component of so-called privacy redirect plugins. These plugins typically consist of Quetre, Libreddit, Imginn, Nitter, ProxiTok, and Invidious. To state that this project is not notable is absurd. JoeBo82(talk)
Can you point to...any...coverage in a reputable tech magazine or academic journal? The best we've got right now is passing coverage in makeuseof.com [1], [2], a source described as unreliable to marginally reliable the one time it was brought to RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_326#Should_MakeUseOf.com_be_considered_a_reliable_source? signed, Rosguill talk 06:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep on IAR. Also, while I don't think a cease-and-desist notice would make Invidious notable under our criteria (NOTNEWS and all that) I have to admit the timing is pretty funny Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for mentioning the news. Google is a Major Benefactor ($50,000+) to Wikipedia, just saying. Follow the money. Adding: It will be interesting to see whether Invidious can raise a Streisand effect like Youtube-dl did, without being a [self-redacted] of Microsoft GitHub -- Yae4 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bruh, they're not going to inform the Cabal a week before they file a legal proceeding lol, Wikipedia is important but not that important. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP shows up on top of many searches, if there's an article. Coincidence? More coverage at AlternativeTo, FWIW. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TIL AlternativeTo has a news section. How reliable would that be? SWinxy (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At a glance they say AlternativeTo is "user generated" but looks like they have a couple editors/screeners reviewing submissions. They knew enough to refer to GitHub issue[13] not self-hosted invidious mirror: "Our code is already mirrored on our gitea". -- Yae4 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find a single source which clearly passes GNG. I don't think any of the blogs listed above in this AfD count towards GNG - they're not sufficiently secondary enough. I'm also hoping the closer discounts some of the poor !votes above when closing, as we're discussing whether there's enough reliable secondary sourcing for this to have a stand-alone article, not about ignoring rules or general agreement. SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should have cited RAPID instead then, given that (if I had at all) I probably would have !voted weak delete but for recent events. I'm not sure it will achieve GNG or NSOFT level of coverage, even so, but I'm inclined to at least wait until we see how this plays out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, but we can always recreate it if notability becomes obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to the closer - most of these keep !votes aren't well grounded in policy, and the sources that have been presented are still only blogs and not necessarily RS. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, mentions are not _significant_ coverage. Artem.G (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing to gain by deletion of an Article on a topic which is increasing in relevance and public awareness Mattmill30 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The recent Louis Rossmann YouTube video cited by Mattmill30 would seem to be significant independent coverage by a notable expert, if given exception from WP:RSPYT. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Initiatives like Invidious are the only counterbalance to big tech's increasing impact on privacy. There is nothing on this page that is offensive, discriminatory, incites or victimizes criminal behavior. Google's take down order does not hold up under European law and thus can only apply to the US. Removing this page also means that everyone outside the US is affected by this measure. — 131.155.83.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC 06:48, June 13, 2023 (UTC).
  • Comment: And now there is more significant independent coverage at Vice.com Motherboard.[14] -- Yae4 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surrounded by significant (and well-covered) controversy. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SportingFlyer, I don't believe there is a compelling case why IAR should be used to override GNG in this case. While Yae4 gets the closest, in my opinion I do not find any of the 'keep' arguments persuasive here in the face of the argument presented that GNG is not met. (There are a large number of low-quality keep !votes which cite no policy at all...) Daniel (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going through the links provided there does not seem to be coverage in reliable secondary sources. Almost every source is just a plain explanation of the product's features. The Vice article is interesting, but on its own isn't enough to establish significant independent coverage. CarringtonMist (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the last few days have seen a number of sources covering this software (see the most recent three references in the article). It may be wise for delete !voters to revisit their rationales at this point, since more sources exist now (and most, I claim, clear the bar). jp×g 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluation and discussion of the newly cited sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Vice article is an ok start to a case for notability but collectively we're still far short from meeting WP:GNG. I can see the logic behind IAR-ing user-generated and/or primary documentation for subjects like this which exist in a media ecosystem where people primarily communicate through these crowdsourced platforms, but I'm not sure I'm quite convinced by it without an explanation of why the usual UGC problems don't apply here. signed, Rosguill talk 05:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haven't translated yet, but here is Der_Spiegel with what looks like fairly significant coverage.[15] -- Yae4 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Vice and Der Spiegel articles, along with this TorrentFreak article and maybe some of the prior less reliable mentions, seem like a good start, and there may be more coverage of this topic in the near future. I found this article useful for getting a brief overview with links and resources on what seems like a relatively important topic in a niche technology area where reliable sources are less common. I do feel like at this point, especially given the recent controversy, there is a benefit to keeping this article, at least for now. – notwally (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also saw TorrentFreak coverage, but had not done due diligence. They've been discussed at RSN (unclear consensus), and cited hundreds of times. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tutanota is a competitor in email services (is not impartial), and this has "blog" in the URL, but it looks like significant coverage from an independent (AFAIK) source, at least a little better than an average blog. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard of Invidious today for the first time, which might prove non-notability as of now, but was happy to find the article on Wikipedia. Yes, the article should be improved. Yes, Invidious will have to gain notability. However, if we delete it now it will be hard to resurrect it when it becomes notable. Please let's keep it and improve it. ale (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ghacks is how I found out about Invidious, then I saw it written about on other places, some of which others have already mentioned on here (AlternativeTo, Louis Rossmann's YouTube channel). The fact that they recently received a take-down notice from YouTube makes it instantly more notable than it was before. I think the page needs improving but we should keep it. Themidget17 (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far we only have one editor making a strong case that GNG is met. Everything else is on an IAR basis. It is possible to build an encyclopedia article on numerous sources that don't count towards GNG by themselves, but "it's important" and "it's useful" aren't valid reasons to keep if WP:V is violated by the use of unreliable sources. Re-listing because it appears that more sources have been and are being made available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invidious&oldid=1162303920"