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

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 January 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 the current page, and redirect to XVideos, as redirects are cheap. bd2412 T 01:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XNXX[edit]

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

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

Deleted previously. This website lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to XVideos. This website is one of the most popular websites on the whole internet. People will search for "XNXX" on Wikipedia. People Google "XNXX" more often than the search for "Wikipedia". We should think of the reader and redirect to XVideos, where this content should be moved as a subsection. WP:Redirects are cheap. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should think of the reader ... ROFL. 🤣 With all due respect, the people about whom you're thinking are called "wankers" not "readers". There is a big difference. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I've never once gone to Wikipedia to rub one out, yet I have looked up our articles on sex-related topics many times. So, no, they are readers, and your attack on such users is unwarranted. WP:NOTCENSORED Madness ^Darkness 22:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has better references than many of the other similar articles.Rathfelder (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 and G4 criteria: Before coming here, I read the "article". Asides from a very short description, it consists of stats only. WP:NOTSTATS. It is an advertisement, plain and simple. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xvideos as suggested above and redirect the link. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not merge. Not only does XNXX fail WP:NWEB, covering under XVideos would be trivia. The two sites are part of the same network of shell companies. That's about all you can say about XNXX. Redirect may be cheap, but they should be useful. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a classic example of an article that "should" be notable, but isn't. Notability is assessed by lasting significant coverage in multiple independent sources and that just isn't there. A website this popular, one would expect, would attract that and become notable just like Pornhub, XVideos, etc etc. However, the coverage isn't there, and therefore it isn't notable and that's that. Oppose merge per Gene93k; if it were deemed appropriate to write an article on the overall owner or a list of their porn sites (I don't see any reason to do so, myself) that would be a valid target for a redirect & merge. Absent a suitable location, deletion is what we're left with. "Redirect[s] may be cheap, but they should be useful." Agree completely. Madness ^Darkness 22:53, 27 October 2019 (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.