Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyFreeCams.com

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MyFreeCams.com

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

WP:ADMASQy; largely industry promotional sources and primary sources; the few independent non-industry refs do not mention the subject by name. Fails WP:CORP. Pax 18:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete and delete this spam from my mailbox, wait was thinking of something else lol. (This does look like something that would pop up in ones email though) Wgolf (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask that folks do a bit more research into the subject first. There are news sources, which do discuss this business, and it's a big business. Pandeist (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pandeist is the article's creator, and with a page at the site, may have WP:COI.

But only by happenstance. Pandeist (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. How would that possibly be a COI? It's a social media page, like my Facebook page and my Twitter page. Am I not allowed to edit Facebook and Twitter for having pages on the site? Pretty sure it doesn't work that way.... Pandeist (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rarely have I seen a longer list of unreliable sources for a Wikipedia article. There is not one substantial reliable independent source to support the significance of this me-too website, just a lot of press releases recycled in tabloids. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the New York Times is a "tabloid"? [1] GuzzyG (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of the biggest cam sites on the planet. It's won industry awards, its Alexa tracked and fairly high ranked, and is sourced by the mainstream press. I'm not saying this article doesn't need clean up, but the attention the site has received regarding Alexa/Alexandria Morra and "Library Girl" Kendra Sunderland seems enough to source it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Library Girl" was WP:1E, and specific mentions of the site she used (do any industry independent sources even name it?) would be passing mentions anyway. (Otherwise, being #574 on Alexa doesn't make one an automatic shoo-in.) Pax 23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Раціональне анархіст, you're right about Library Girl being a 1E, but coverage on her included mention of MFC, at least in sources I read. And just for your edification, being #574 puts the site in the top 6/1000's of percent of sites on the web, in other words "really high" relative to total number of sites, roughly a Billion. OK, so not as impressive as Ebay or YouTube, but not too shabby either. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebay is #5. YouTube is #3. Meanwhile, myfreecams is now #581 and dropping like a stone. Why, a fellow could be forgiven for thinking they desperately need the free advertizing on Wikipedia to keep the good times running another quarter on fumes. (They've lost half their global Alexa ranking in just the last year.) Pax 07:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree with any of what you have just stated, but it doesn't change the fact that there are roughly 999,999,000 other websites that wish they ranked as high as MFC. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by the way -- per Scalhotrod, PLUS because here on LukeFord.com, My Free Cams was the comeback venue for Jenna Jameson, one of the most famous porn stars ever. Pandeist (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source, and it's a trivial mention. Pax 02:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So find a better source. And by the way Miami New Times is a reliable source on the page. Pandeist (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a one-sentence trivial mention in the fourteenth paragraph. Please visit the links in my previous reply. Pax 03:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the New York Time article under the external links? Whole thing is about the MFC experience. Pandeist (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:WEB because of coverage like these. [2][3][4][5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:WEBCRIT per the sources provided above by Morbidthoughts. Additionally, here's another source: CBC News Windsor. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep per sources provided by Morbidthoughts, especially the New York Times, and the fact that they as an adult cam website won the top award in their field (live cam websites) , 3 times in a row for XBIZ once for AVN. GuzzyG (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - Passes WEBCRIT + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be notable. Let's not let the article be a venue for promotion though. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the sources offered here are a bit sensationalist, and the coverage in each source is generally pretty light. However, taken together, there's arguably significant coverage in reliable sources, even if the individual articles are a bit lacking. If the article becomes too promotional, it can be fixed through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surprisingly for a cam site, it seems to meet WP:NOTABILITY, and has no shortage of secondary sources. Although I don't see it progressing past start class, I say keep. Googol30 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2015 (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.