Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn Hub

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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Porn Hub

Porn Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- this how it's spelled

I can't see anything here that meets notability guidelines. Lots of references but no significant coverage of this website. The closest it gets is referring to a lawsuit against Pink Visual's copyright holding company. Other references don't mention Porn Hub at all and are more generally about Porn 2.0, or just defining the site's various categories. BelovedFreak 15:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I am now neutral on whether or not this is deleted. I don't think that the Alexa rankings make it unquestionably notable, and I'm not convinced that the lawsuit confers notability directly to this website as it's between Ventura Content and the owners of Brazzers, although porn hub is involved. For me, it boils down to the significant coverage, which I think is borderline here. Teen Porn 101 is probably the best source mentioned here, and there are numerous less than significant mentions. I wonder if it would be better merged into Pink Visual or Porn 2.0.--BelovedFreak 10:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your view but can the article not be made a stub? It may then be improved. Stubs do not have much information but there are not deleted? I am not especially knowledgeable of the guidelines and please tell me if this is not possible. Thanks. Phyprt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyprt (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Short articles are sometimes called stubs (see Wikipedia:Stub and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment) but they still need to meet the guidelines for inclusion. The relevant ones here are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web). I appreciate that you've added a lot of references to the article, but in my mind, there isn't significant coverage of Porn Hub in those references.--BelovedFreak 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. This website does not receive significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Generalized coverage of "Porn 2.0" is insufficient to establish notability. Emily Jensen (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The sourced claim that it's the 55th-most-trafficked web site (and the cited source indicates it's the 36th-ranked, in the United States) sounds pretty notable to me. TJRC (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, which is why I hesitated to bring this to AFD. However, as far as I understand, Alexa rankings are not generally relied on for establishing notability. See for example Wikipedia:Search engine test - not a policy or guideline but it makes some good points about the problems with Alexa rankings.--BelovedFreak 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Stubs written by Wikipedia novices are sometimes not following guidelines. Please not that guidelines are guidelines not unbendable hard rules and cannot be known in thier eniteirty by casual contributers. --Zarutian (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We aren't here to discuss the adequacy of the article as submitted by the original contributor, but instead whether sufficient sources to meet the notability guideline exist. Since it's difficult to prove the non-existence of sources, we proceed under the default assumption that the sources aren't available, until shown otherwise (unless the existence of references is obvious from the subject matter). While a reasonable effort to find suitable references should precede an AFD nomination, the burden of establishing notability ultimately lies with editors seeking to retain the article. Emily Jensen (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - no significant third party coverage in reliable sources. See WP:WEB. Alexia rank is here irrelevant. Claritas (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Porn is not something reliable sources cover significantly. Have you seen any newspaper cover a company in the porn industry? Me neither. --Zarutian (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are arguing against the notability guidelines themselves. You might be better bringing up these points at the guideline talkpages. As well as significant coverage in reliable sources, this article also has the option of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (web).--BelovedFreak 19:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, pornographic content sometimes does receive significant coverage in reliable sources: the Hustler article is a good example. Emily Jensen (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• KeepSignificant coverage in independent and reliable sources such as the copyright lawsuits discussed in the article plus [1], [2], mention in many others,(says it is a "mainstay search", [3], [4], [5], [6] show it is discussed enough in mainstream news sources to justify an article, plus 55th most visited internet site per Alexa. Edison (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. Emily Jensen (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep and rename to Pornhub. There is some mainstream coverage linked above identifying this as one of the top porn sites at the moment. There's nothing in-depth really. Pcap ping 12:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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.