Talk:XVideos

RFD discussion: September–November 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

XVideos

Just a website. Denazz (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not Wiktionary material. mynewfiles (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete: don’t see how it passes WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless quotes that pass WT:BRAND can be found. AG202 (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete, such sites are prone to malware anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A great website, which should definitely be kept. PUC – 19:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It's as good a reason as @Donnanz's. We'd better add "must not have malware" to WT:CFI. Theknightwho (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We need to go ahead and create a page WT:No sodomy to prevent such inappropriate words or rationales or unnecessary pucization of this project (which is unbecoming of an admin). Anyway, delete per my statement in #Pornhub. Inqilābī 17:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Added two quotes (2019, 2022) which may count towards inclusion under WT:BRAND. I feel like RfV is a better place for finding qualifying citations for such terms. Einstein2 (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Einstein2: you're mostly right. It depends on what the nominator thinks of the term. If finding qualifying quotations is not the issue but there is a very low likelihood that the term passes the CFI, then RFD is the correct venue for the discussion. However, if the issue is more about whether enough qualifying quotations can be found for a term which otherwise is thought to pass CFI, then RFV is the more appropriate venue. It's often a matter of an editor's impression whether a term is more in the former or latter scenario, so it's hard to say that RFD is always the wrong venue for such terms. I suppose if we wanted to be strict about it, if there's evidence or consensus one way or another the discussion could be transferred, but this may be more trouble than it's worth. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, in my honest assessment, with Einstein2’s quotes, and its kind, it passes WT:BRAND, and judging by the interests affected, rather than essentialistically, it now seems to have greater influence on the characters of people than books of the Bible we include, not to compare with named individuals we include, which we can do as well, since some people are remembered for their companies and products. Lol, we even include Baidu and DuckDuckGo, what’s the difference, that you can only find porn with this search engine? YouTube is a search engine too—you make money on by targeting the keywords people search. I think the point where we include Web-site names is when the brand has permeated the minds so much as to be too valuable for the owners to rename the site. It is all around the place like the International Space Station. Fay Freak (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. – Svārtava (tɕ) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)