Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtube (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. Courcelles 17:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xtube

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

Not notable (article has zero third party article reference). Loginnigol (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 17:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily found literally thousands of results among secondary sources including books, news media, and scholarly academic references. — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post any examples of significant coverage in WP:RS here? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books is the best first place to look for these, not google. (1) Attwood, Feona. Porn.Com: Making Sense of Online Pornography. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. (a respectable academic publisher; GBks shows extensive coverage on p72 and 20 other pages, and the book is in over 300 libraries a/c WorldCat) (2) Substantialdiscussion on several pages] of Hall, Donald E. Reading Sexual. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2012. (A well-known writer on literary theory & sexuality) (3)Brief coverage in academic works, for example : Weitzer, Ronald John. Sex for Sale: Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry. New York: Routledge, 2000.; Freedman, Eric. Transient Images: Personal Media in Public Frameworks. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press, 2011.(4) Brief mention or discussion in non academic books, for example, Levy, Frederick. 15 Minutes of Fame Becoming a Star in the YouTube Revolution. New York, N.Y.: Alpha, 2008. Thompson, Damian. The Fix: How Addiction Is Invading Our Lives and Taking Over Your World. London: Collins, 2013. (5) References to it in numerous works of fiction which anyone can find in G Bks if interested, probably enough to support a Xtube in literature, etc. section. (6) Article in The Advocate 2009, p.250 , not sure of which issue. and undoubtedly elsewhere--I haven't even checked the indexes.

The challenge has bern met--it took me all of 2 minutes with one subset of Google to find them, another 10 to verify and add the refs here, using no specialized knowledge whatsoever.; I suppose the nom will now withdraw the AfD ? DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is what is on the page, not merely what is out there somewhere in cyberspace. The article is over a year old and still has zero amount of third party reference Loginnigol (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the criteria applies to the subject, not to our article. Problems with our article are WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problems if the subject itself it notable. We don't delete an article just because it hasn't been maintained. Stalwart111 02:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis of my comment above and the sources listed by DGG. If those sources aren't in the article, add them, per WP:BEFORE. Stalwart111 02:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets NOTEability, as noted above. Nom's comment appears to suggest this nom was made erroneously. Loginnigol, would you consider withdrawing the nom? 108.168.95.104 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per DGG, it seems the subject easily meets WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 06:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, needs to add more independent sources, but they exist and are easily included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2013 (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.