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. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Pornopedia

Pornopedia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

I fail to see how this is notable, it's never received any significant coverage, just a few passing mentions like "omg did you know only 5% of people watch porn with the sound off?!?!", fails WP:NWEB GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

If you fail to see how Pornopedia is notable, you might want to check out the "secret" In the media section of the article. Having a column in the notable German men's magazine Coupé for years is not "just a few passing mentions". Pornopedia is also used as source in online articles of big newspapers and Pornopedia is mentioned in pop culture, like this book for example. -- Till Kraemer ( talk) 19:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

You might want to read about what significant, independent coverage actually is. Because stuff "they" (being the subject) authored and a 3 sentence blurb isn't it and a work of fiction mentioning it once in passing isn't either. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

You might want to count the sentences of Bild's article about Pornopedia again. Spoiler alert: there are more than 3. -- Till Kraemer ( talk) 20:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:RSP ctrl f bild. It's not a valid source. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

You might want to read the part "editors consider the source usable in some cases" again but apparently, you are not one of those editors. I made all my points. If the article is not notable even though you're the first admin since 2011‎ who is bothered by it, fine. I'm out of here. Surprisingly, arguing on Wikipedia talk pages is not my day-to-day business ;) Cheers and all the best, -- Till Kraemer ( talk) 20:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

No. Sources that publish garbage like this are not reliable for anything, including demonstrating notability. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete Apart from making me cringe at this snapshot of the underbelly of the German tabloid market, I believe the demonstrated sourcing does not quite rise to what we expect in terms of coverage. The Bild article is the best item, and another of the type might just lift it over the threshold, but that doesn't seem to exist. The Coupe item is - well, see for yourself. Having been the named source for an ongoing featurette is not nothing, but it's not significant coverage either. The rest is homegrown stuff or passing mentions, which don't factor into such an assessment. Overall, not quite there. (Re Bild/valid source: it's still usable for determining notability, just not for sourcing possibly controversial factual statements) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

(inserted) ADD without specific comment: the deletion discussion about the equivalent article on deWP, from back in 2012 (resulted in deletion) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply

There are actually more Bild articles about Pornopedia, for example this one. They don't show up in Google News but you can find them if you search on Bild.de directly. -- Till Kraemer ( talk) 20:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Sources written by the subject are not independent and cannot generally establish notability as it's not coverage. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I didn't write a single Bild article, so those sources actually are independent. You can find more press coverage here, mostly from industry magazines like Adult Webmaster Business though. German men's magazines like the print versions of Coupé and Praline covered Pornopedia outside of the column too, so it is independent too since I didn't write those articles. -- Till Kraemer ( talk) 20:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Mild Delete Still not quite enough to push it over the top, notability-wise. I believe it's just one of the many "-pedia" clones online that use the Media Wiki software. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article created by owner of the company, most work done on it by him. No reliable sources give it significant coverage to prove it is notable by Wikipedia standards. He also created an article for himself at Till Kraemer, not sure if any of the German sources are notable, but it was determined that porn awards do not count towards notability. Dream Focus 20:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Dream Focus is checking in from this discussion where he already tried to discredit my contributions and nobody was talking about porn awards here. -- Till Kraemer ( talk) 21:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I have also nominated your article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Till Kraemer. Since these two things are related, it should be mentioned here. And all you have done on commons is upload pictures of female porn stars it seems, and all your edits fit on one page despite it being done for years. You aren't very active editing anywhere, and most of your edits are related to you. Dream Focus 21:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete The sourcing is pretty ropey, I struggle to see how this would get an NWEB pass. The COI concerns, while not a reason to delete, don't speak in its favour. Without better sourcing, which I'm not finding, this is a delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lack of reliable sources with significant coverage. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The sourcing is far from adequate. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete As with the bio, a person using the Wikipedia to promote their personal business should be squashed on sight. Zero notability, outside the subject's own penned sources. Zaathras ( talk) 02:11, 22 December 2020 (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.