Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xfanz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No clear consensus to delete. I had some difficulty evaluating this one. When we look at article on "fringe" subjects (such as pornography) we need to evaluate the notability within the context of the subject. In this case I believe that Bob made a strong argument within the context of the industry. However, the arguments for delete were also compelling on a more fundamental level of what constitutes notability. Hopefully when this comes up again in a few months Bob's predictions of continued success will make this issue moot. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xfanz

Xfanz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- (View AfD)

Good morning! My name is Bob Preston. I'm the executive editor at XFANZ. I submit these reasons for why we're not spam:

  1. We make no money from our users. None. It's free to join our site. Like many Web 2.0 enterprises, we make money from ad revenue.
  2. We're a legitimate news outlet. We're an offshoot of XBIZ.com, a prominent trade Web site and publication that covers the adult industry. For the record, I offer the Alexa ranking of XBIZ as proof of its popularity. Today their aggregate ranking is 7,777: [1] XFANZ, by contrast, is a consumer site. Think of us as Entertainment Weekly for the adult biz. For the record, we launched on October 2, and we're steadily climing up Alexa's rankings: [2] OK, so we cover the adult industry. Pretty goofy, right? But Wikipedia has made room in its annals for two entries on Adult Video News, another prominent publication and Web site that covers the adult biz: AVN_Magazine AVN_Awards But besides AVN, Wikipedia also offers dozens -- if not hundreds -- of other articles on the adult industry, including (at a glance) at least a dozen entries on news outlets, blogs, magazines and Web sites that cover the adult industry or human sexuality in general:Category:Pornography
  3. We're Web 2.0, all the way. (I offer this on a more qualitative, emotional level.) We started XFANZ to offer Web-savvy porn fans a way to interact and connect with each other and porn stars. We offer (again, for free) a full community, a full forum and a growing library of viral videos. Our news stories all have social bookmarking tags (reddit, del.icio.us, Fark). We also have future plans to add other Web 2.0 features, including a social bookmarking portal and a full viral video service, a la YouTube.
In closing: Pursuant to previous notes we've received from Wikipedia editors, we're going through our entry to streamline it and add citations for all the factual claims we make Guys, we fully realize that a lot of jerks from the adult industry have abused Wikipedia. We really want to be a part of the Web 2.0 community and a part of Wikipedia. Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeBee25 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, site is non-notable --Mhking 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Good evening, guys. I thought I'd answer the "non-notable" charge. My response has two parts:
  1. I would politely direct anyone to re-read what I said about our commitment to Web 2.0 development. We are the first community-based adult industry portal that goes straight to the fans. The only other site that even resembles us is XPeeps.com, which caters directly to the industry only and doesn't offer any of the news, interviews or videos that we do.
  2. OK, I've done some reading about the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. I'd like to call your attention to the seventh prong: Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.
Many Web sites use XFANZ RSS feeds for their news content. One prominent site that uses our content is Booble.com (Booble's Wikipedia entry), the adult search engine: [3] You'll see that we are the sole news provider for one of the most popular adult search engines on the Web. Based on our unique combination of adult industry coverage, Web 2.0 development and prominence on outside Web sites, we satisfy the requirements for notability by Wikipedia's own guidelines. We've also demonstrated our willingness to accept and implement notes from Wikipedia editors. We're delighted to do it. I respectfully submit that no common spammer would do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeBee25 (talk • contribs)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm at work and can't poke around regarding adult websites so I can't really evaluate the notability of the article. I did however want to note for Bob Preston that arguing for the retention of this article by citing other articles that you believe are less notable than yours is an invalid argument. See WP:POKEMON. The notability of one article has no bearing on the notability of another. Naming off articles you think are less notable than yours won't bolster your case. It'll probably just get the other articles nominated too. Otto4711 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response to Otto4711's feedback: Otto, thanks for the feedback! Point taken -- I've deleted that part of my argument. If you get a chance after work, I hope you'll check out my argument regarding the presence of our RSS feeds on external sites, including Booble.com. -- bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeBee25 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment -- Bob, I have to thank you for your willingness to come up with ways to make the article work. That being said, my personal feeling is that Xfanz and the other adult sites you mention are all not notable, despite their inclusion in WP. I've voted against more than one adult site that has ended up being included, and will likely continue to. My personal feeling is that the sites in general do not have the independent, empirical citations and sources necessary to qualify as notable. Is this something that you can fix by a wave of a wand? I don't think so, unless you can get citations in either the mainstream media or in the technically-oriented (i.e., sites like Slashdot or other web-centric sources) media in very short order. I don't consider my stance to be an arbitrary one, but I do consider it to be a significant litmus test that must be passed, in my opinion, to be notable. In terms of your other contention (no ordinary spammer would do this), I would agree with you, and would not term you a spammer. However, I would question whether or not you understand that Wikipedia is not a promotion vehicle. A site, company or entity does not have a 'right' to be here, per se, and shouldn't be here simply because it exists. I can't see your company being included in Encyclopedia Brittanica, and I can't imagine you working this much to get your site included there. As a result, my earlier vote to delete Xfanz stands. --Mhking 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. First, let me thank Bob for his courteous writing here (I took the liberty of indenting responses for readability). I agree the article isn't spam. Unfortunately, Xfanz seems too new to have gained much notice, which is really what Wikipedia: Notability is all about. It may be used by Booble, but, frankly, Booble isn't incredibly notable itself, so I don't think that makes it meet criteria 3 of WP:WEB. The sorts of things that really would prove notability would be coverage from unrelated sources, especially the mainstream press. I don't see that yet, perhaps it will come, and when it does we should have an article on it. If there are two unrelated non-trivial articles about Xfanz, I'll change my opinion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing to Keep after evidence of notability provided below. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (EC): I also fixed formatting at the same time, Anon, sorry. ju66l3r 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Site fails WP:WEB (an RSS feed is not nontrivial content and Booble.com is not an online newspaper, broadcaster, or publisher...which is the third notability criteria that note#7 in WP:WEB is referring). Article borders on WP:SPAM and is an admitted conflict of interest by creator. ju66l3r 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Sorry Bob, despite your eloquence in defending the article, I don't see that this article meets notability guidelines. Otto4711 23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Bob here again. Guys, thanks for the prompt and detailed responses. Let me go point by point:
Mhking, you said: I can't see your company being included in Encyclopedia Brittanica, and I can't imagine you working this much to get your site included there.
With respect, if Encyclopedia Brittanica were the leading online source for information, I can guarantee you that I would lobby to have an entry on Xfanz included in it.
But we're long since past the days that paper-based repositories of information could remain relevant for long. If someone wants to find out more about Xfanz, I want them to be able to find it here.
Mhking, I also address your concern about self-promotion in my response to Ju66l3r -- if I could trouble you to read down below.
  • Bob, while I do appreciate your answer, it does not sway my position. Based upon the guidelines that Wikipedia has set for inclusion, your article does not qualify. I'm sorry. My vote remains to delete the entry. --Mhking 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse, you said: The sorts of things that really would prove notability would be coverage from unrelated sources, especially the mainstream press. I don't see that yet, perhaps it will come, and when it does we should have an article on it. If there are two unrelated non-trivial articles about Xfanz, I'll change my opinion.
Anon, with respect, asking for mainstream press coverage of an adult site -- no matter how notable -- is a pretty onerous requirement. The mainstream media only looks at the adult industry to laugh at it.
That said, though, I offer these links:
  • On Oct. 30 2006, I appeared on a panel of five adult industry professionals to debate actor Stephen Baldwin. Baldwin became a born-again Christian after 9/11 and started a crusade against the adult industry. For some bewildering reason, this garnered the attention of ABC and VH-1. VH-1 covered it as a part of a reality show starring Baldwin.
Information on Baldwin's VH-1 reality show.
Information on the debate I participated in with Baldwin.
  • Here's some coverage from the prominent adult blog Fleshbot about our launch party, which featured Dave Navarro and his band The Panic Channel.
  • Here's more coverage from Fleshbot, this time after our launch party.
Lastly, Ju66l3r, you said: (an RSS feed is not nontrivial content and Booble.com is not an online newspaper, broadcaster, or publisher...which is the third notability criteria that note #7 in WP:WEB is referring). Article borders on WP:SPAM and is an admitted conflict of interest by creator
1. I read through the WP:WEB page again and found no mention of RSS feeds. From what source or on what basis are you asserting that the use of RSS feeds is trivial?
2. Regarding the self-promotion and conflict of interest issue: I concede that I don't understand this requirement, and I respectfully submit that this has entirely to do with our newness. Six months from now, when we're a far more prominent site, how would it work if we added an entry then?
Otto4711, you came in with a delete vote while I was writing this latest response. I hope you'll give it another look.
Thanks! -- bob
  • Comment - regarding the sources you posted: one (the Baldwin interview) does not seem to mention Xfanz at all and the other is from the parent company of Xfanz and therefore is not an independent reliable source. If, six months from now, there are independent sources which talk about Xfanz in a non-trivial way or for that matter at all then the article would be much more likely to survive and Afd. As it stands now, the site simply does not meet notability guidelines. Otto4711 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The KSEX/debate story might give *you* (Bob Preston) notability, but does not make XFANZ.com notable. As for your conflict of interest, please read the link I just provided. The point is that this site is for building an encyclopedia which requires a certain level of neutrality. Since you have a vested interest in XFANZ, the fact that you are a major contributor to the article forces the rest of us to question and scrutinize the neutrality of the information provided by the article. This is not acceptable practice and goes against the guidelines (just as you should not start a Bob Preston article even though you may have enough notability for arguing with a Baldwin to meet WP:BIO). If you are notable enough, then someone else will write an article about you...which is also usually a good litmus test for prima facia notability too (and not a back-door shoestring attempt at having your RSS feed hosted on a back-scratching company's website who buys advertising on your own site). ju66l3r 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with AnonEMouse.--Velvet elvis81 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not meet any of the 3 points of WP:WEB. Alexa [ranking] of 77k+, no news articles I can find, no independant reviews. Basically the site has not made sufficient impact in the world for there to be a verifyable encyclopedia article about it. --Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Bob here again: Guys, thanks for all the feedback. I need, however, to reiterate a previous point I made in reponse to Anon:
Anon, with respect, asking for mainstream press coverage of an adult site -- no matter how notable -- is a pretty onerous requirement.
My problem here dovetails with an earlier complaint I made -- that Wikipedia includes dozens (if not hundreds) of articles about the adult industry and adult performers. I retracted an earlier argument I had made about those other articles being less notable than the Xfanz article. I'm not advancing that argument again.
Here's what I am arguing: The requirement for mainstream press coverage to satisfy the notability requirement for an adult entry is not only onerous, but would -- by definition and mandate -- automatically preclude virtually all entries about pornography. That unleashes a host of freedom-of-speech issues, but -- like Mhking said -- something doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia just because it exists.
Mhking, though, did say that coverage by a tech-oriented blog (like Slashdot) would satisfy him. I cited two entries on the popular adult blog Fleshbot.com -- Alexa ranking 3,320 -- but no one here even acknowledged them. Here they are again:
  • Here's some coverage from the prominent adult blog Fleshbot about our launch party, which featured Dave Navarro and his band The Panic Channel.
  • Here's more coverage from Fleshbot, this time after our launch party.
Furthermore, as a remedy for the onerous requirement of mainstream media coverage, I submit coverage within the adult industry -- and we have plenty of that:
  • Additional comment; I would argue that Fleshbot is not a mainstream tech-oriented news aggregator in the same vein as Slashbot. The only coverage you have offered in a mainstream vehicle is the debate you had with Baldwin. That, simply, is not enough to warrant inclusion, as the article (Xfanz) still (IMO) does not meet the qualifications of WP:WEB. --Mhking 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ju66l3r, with respect, I disagree with your assessment of the KSEX article I linked, and I simply don't see how the participation of an XFANZ staff member -- no matter who it was -- in that debate wouldn't raise the profile of the entire company. When someone appears in a political debate, say, doesn't their appearance benefit the image of their party? Or when an author appears in a televised debate, doesn't that automatically raise the profile of his or her works?
I respectfully submit that it's disingenuous to argue that my appearance in that debate didn't raise the profile of XFANZ.
This leaves us with the self-promotion issue. I've read Wikipedia's guidelines about this, and here's what I take issue with:
1. How does an Xfanz entry on Wikipedia even benefit us? The only search-engine-related change I've noticed happens when I search for "xfanz" -- Google returns our Wikipedia entry third or fourth, but that would only happen when someone was already looking for Xfanz to begin with.
2. Without the intrinsic benefit of having a Wikipedia entry, this brings me back to why we got flagged for deletion to begin with -- the assertion that our entry was spam. User Artw initially flagged us, and when we asked him why, offered only this:
The article (by XFANZ TEAM) is IMHO clearly spam. I have no idea what the actual site is like and do not care.
Suffice it to say, Artw's rudeness bothered me, to say nothing of his baseless declaration that we're spam.
I'm also delighted to report that everyone who has taken the time to respond here has proven themselves the opposite of Artw. Thank you for taking the time to respectfully mount your arguments. I appreciate it.
With respect, I believe that I've answered that claim gamely here. At least two respondents here have conceded that our entry isn't spam, and most of the rest of the respondents have fallen back on the notability complaint, which I also believe I've answered.
As for the self-promotion charge, I dovetail my complaint with my unhappiness with Artw:
I respectfully submit that the conflict of interest and notability guidelines -- especially regarding the adult industry -- need revision. I admit that my experience with Wikipedia is a fraction compared to everyone here, but as a member of the adult industry, I find these guidelines to be insufficiently fleshed-out and arbitrarily enforced.
A Wikipedia page filled with hundreds of links to free-hosted galleries and affiliate links (for, say, Tera Patrick) that would clearly benefit one user? That's spam.
A Wikipedia entry for a prominent website (within the adult industry) made in good faith by a user clearly willing to abide by Wikipedia's editorial feedback and guidelines -- and that has no immediate financial or traffic-generating benefit? I certainly don't think that's spam, and I (again, respectfully) submit that Wikipedia has room for such an entry.
On a side note, I readily concede that even though I'm an Internet geek, I'm hardly an expert on search-engine theory or application. If there is some robust benefit that comes from having a Wikipedia entry, please just let me know.
On another side note, how long does this process go on? Will a higher-lever Wikipedia administrator make the final call?
Thanks again for your time, guys. -- bob
Sorry if I offended you by suggetsing that your self-created promotional article was "spam", but IMHO that's what it is, and that's exactly what I do when I come across any other articles of a similar nature. Artw 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Bob here: Artw, thanks for dropping in. With respect, I don't mind what you did so much as how you did it.
Some people do believe it's useful for promotion, yes. As one of the top 15 web sites in the world (number 12 today, apparently), Wikipedia has a rather high PageRank, directly feeds Answers.com, etc. But whether it's helpful to Xfans is beside the point, we're here to argue whether it's helpful to Wikipedia. Those 4 links do show some notability to me, so I'm changing my opinion to a weak keep: AINews isn't the New York Times and Dave Navarro isn't Michael Jackson, but they're nothing to sneeze at either. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process lasts 5 days on the average, then an experienced user, usually an admin, reads the discussion, decides if there is consensus to keep or delete, closes the discussion, and deletes if necessary. I'm also an admin, but can't close this discussion as I participated in it, so am obviously biased for determining which way consensus fell. For the sake of this one, I'm just an experienced editor. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Bob here:Anon, I sincerely appreciate you changing your position. Though I feel worse now about my own position after finding out that the mere presence of an Xfanz entry might, however indirectly, bolster Xfanz's traffic. Thanks for the 411 on that and about the final deletion procedure.
Thanks again. -- bob
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.