Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BaDoinkVR

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 consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BaDoinkVR

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

Doing this on behalf of ticket:2018013110005508. They give the rationale: "The article is appears to be written by employee (SPA using a code name 'labia') and hyperlinks with an "external link" to the adult website. The 'adult' company is one of millions. Many attend conventions and many receive "pornography awards." Wikipedia does not have an 'adult filter' that would prevent access to children. Bing, Yahoo, and Google have SafeSearch to screen children, however, this is circumvented when a child goes to Wikipedia and gains access to adult content. Children routinely use Wikipedia to do essays or homework. That is of concern to parents who are motivate to donate and support Wikipedia financially, because they believe they are donating to educate our children."

Yes the OTRS customer did allow me to link to the ticket and publish the rationale :) !dave 22:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep as the subject appears to satisfy WP:CORP and the main deletion rationale goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. The alleged COI issues are surmountable. Should Wikipedia purge notable but not famous porn articles because children also use the site? • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ - (Redacted) –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: Could you please revisit what you wrote, in light that the requester will read this discussion. I am sure that they not be very pleased to read your comment at all. I understand how you may have seen this, thought 'WTF?' and then made this comment in haste. Please reconsider -- The Golden Rule. Thanks. !dave 14:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I'd forgot all about this so have redacted all, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Redacted above per the ping below - Sources look fine and there's plenty more online, Not sure about the whole NOTCENSORED thing however this still meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Davey2010:, which sources in particular look fine? None that I have seen could be described as such, have you seen some online? HighKing 18:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News: [1] (Promo piece tho), [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Books: [10][11],

All of which IMHO establishes notability and certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I asked in case I'd missed something. I don't agree GNG has been met - none of those references pass the criteria for establishing notability. The books are mere mentions-in-passing. HighKing 11:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the notability bar, and Wikipedia is not censored. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is blogs, WP:SPIP, passing mentions and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Just typical tech startup promo 'cruft. Wikipedia is not censored, but neither is it a collection of articles on nn companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Relative to the nomination for deletion, WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Furthermore, parents can purchase parental control software that is available from many vendors to limit children's access to internet content. See the article "The Best Parental Control Software of 2018" from PC Magazine for starters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the reasoning provided for the nomination - WP:NOTCENSORED - but K.e.coffman above has identified an issue with sourcing. None of the references provided meet the criteria for establishing notability and all rely on extensive quotes/interviews from the company and their officers. Article Content is not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. HighKing 14:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "sources" are the same kind obtained when a PR firm is hired. (The articles promote the business, sell the products, and quote the business owner on how wonderful the newest innovation is.) The page also hyperlinks to an adult-subscription site (for profit). Seems the intent of this Wikipedia page is to sell and promote various products. LuvToEdit (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)— LuvToEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've unstruck the !vote; SPAs are allowed to vote and the comment is already marked as such. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not reviewed the sources to check to see if it passes notability, but it clearly passes WP:NOTCENSORED which is what I think this AfD is about. I'd vote soft keep. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep got pinged back into this so I reviewed the sources; this has substantial third-party magazine articles written about the company which pass WP:GNG. They are promotional in a sense, but they're also independent from the source and appear to be more than just PR. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the nomination may have been flawed, but the subject clearly does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and the content is promo 'cruft. Might as well delete now, instead of kicking the can down the road, so to speak. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The requester has added a clarification that We would like to clarify that we don't seek to censor adult content. Even with "adult" content, the sources typically add credibility to an article that is encyclopedic. With this page, the sources are publicity/press releases and the endorsements are coming from the employees. With suggestive photos, this seems more promotional, rather than "informational." We hope the editors who vote can take a closer look at the references (these speak for themselves). @K.e.coffman, SportingFlyer, HighKing, Northamerica1000, XOR'easter, Davey2010, and Gene93k: pinging. !dave 17:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the sources, and they're mostly quotes from the CEO of the company, mentions in a general discussion of virtuality reality porn etc, or random awards. Fails WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not meant to have a dog in this debate, but WP:SPIP is a very good point when taking the non-press release sources into account. !dave 12:18, 27 February 2018 (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.