Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang Bus (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ST47 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bang Bus
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Limited coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm  (talk)  17:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * DELETE Only trivial mentions in reliable sources found through google and news searches. ogenstein (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources cited in the article itself satisfy the WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Additional links Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Those are trivial references (putting aside the Gawker blogpost which isn't remotely RS and merely describes the premise of a particular video). None of the cited works cover the company with any depth (actually they don't cover it at all). Two of them are quoting the exact same text (including the subject in a list of like porn providers) which simply describes a generically misogynistic porn plot (although plot might be an inexact term). The other references do the same but without any quoting. They're essentially being used as an example of what the author wishes to expound upon and I wouldn't consider them all RS either. ogenstein (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You and I have extremely different ideas of what should be considered depth to satisfy the GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The Miami New Times article discusses an example of a scene production for the site, describes the general theme of the site comparing it to past themes in pornography, and discusses its founder and history. The local news site  discusses the same scene production in terms of its novelty and legality. Bangbus is a pioneer in Internet porn, and the website and its underlying theme is  referred to again and again in those academic criticisms. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Local news coverage of a strange but true story does not signify 'notable'. Think of the context of those stories you link to. It is of local interest so the local press works on a story. Where is the national attention? If this were the 'southfloridapedia', then this might be notable. Secondly, even this coverage is of an event. WP:NRV rejects 'short-term interest'. Miami New Times is a blog and is not an RS.


 * You should also remember the first three-quarters of the WP:GNG guideline you quote: 'Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail…. [It is] more than a trivial mention…'.


 * Digby's book is 240 pages. The subject earns a trivial mention. But let's look at this against that WP:GNG guideline. The book is about sexuality and romance in a militaristic society [main topic]. The chapter (5) that mentions 'bangbus' is about masculinity and fantasy in society [subtopic] and as part of that subject, discusses pornography [sub-subtopic] and in the course of doing so, mentions 'bangbus' [trivial]. If you cited this work for any of the three levels of topics, I could support it. Not here though.


 * Re: Kimmel article… How does, "On sites such as slutbus, bangbus and bangboat…" constitute significant coverage? They're serving as a 'type'. Does saying that the site has trailers serve as in-depth discussion? If just visiting the site would provide more information then it's not significant.


 * I must also point out that numerous other people/orgs are mentioned in the article, e.g. playboy, girls gone wild, maxim, pamela anderson, larry flynt, etc…. Nobody would use this article as evidence that any of those entities were notable. These mentions are trivial. 'Bangbus' isn't any sort of a topic in any of the pieces, they're not even a footnote. See the Flynt or Mitchell brothers articles for examples of notable members of the pornographic business.


 * Please also see WP:WEBCRIT which gives examples of actual notable web sites (see [4]). WP:NWEB requires 'verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners.' All we have here is a token description of the content. WP:FAILN requires sources that 'provide in-depth information about the web content.' and suggests as an alternative to having its own page, perhaps merging it into something like 'list of internet phenomena' or delete. WP:WHYN requires significant coverage so as to write an encyclopedic article, not merely a few sentences. ogenstein (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree. The geographic circulation of a source does not determine its notability. The notability requirements simply requires that the significant coverage come from reliable sources. WP:NWEB is not a limitation on the WP:GNG. There is enough content in the coverage to support paragraphs about its history, its theme, and criticism against the theme that it pioneered. Additional coverage about its history. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone's free to disagree. First, AVN is not RS. Second, it's not that NWEB is a limitation, it's that this subject does not meet GNG and NWEB provides an alternative recognition of notability (and umm… you raised it so I tried to address it).


 * Third, circulation is a factor in significance — if a newspaper falls in the forest…. WP:GEOSCOPE Every town has news. The national news cannot give space to every scrap of news from every town in the country. So national news is generally something significant to a broad range of people. If something rises up to the national level, then it will typically get coverage and become more notable. There are too many towns and cities in the world for us to know let alone care about everything that happens in each of them. Finally, an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize what's written elsewhere, not copy it wholesale. With the sources that are legitimate, it will be more likely that every single word will be required but still only result in a stub of an article. I don't think the site warrants mention in the article on pornography (and it isn't mentioned). If you find more sources I'll look at them but I feel stronger about my opinion now than when I began digging into this. ogenstein (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOSCOPE only applies to the scope of events; not the scope of the sources. A limited geographical area may have a limited number of reliable sources, but that is not the same thing as arguing the scope of the sources limits the notability of the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd characterize it that way; I think it addresses both. I've highlighted a couple of portions. Note that it suggests that even national coverage isn't a guarantee of notability.


 * "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article."


 * I read through the first two of the links you provided (I'll get to the other later) and I feel that they actually add to my arguments. I didn't even bring up that the Local10 reports are primary sources… Not only are they not analysing a story, or even just reporting on a story, they're actually making the news here. Not saying they shouldn't have done so, only that it factors into claims of notability — really, they're just talking about something novel and inexplicable that happened one day. Nobody else cared even that much. And just to elaborate, I doubt that anyone a decade or a century from now would care about this (or beyond yourself, even right now :). As more than ten years have passed, we know that with certainty. I don't think that the subject has changed anything meaningfully even within their niche of a niche. Earlier I pointed out two pages which demonstrate a significance to that industry which dwarfs the subject's. If you look at the SF Examiner article cited on the Mitchell brothers page in note [7] you'll see what I mean. The dearth of material on this subject in comparison shows that clearly. ogenstein (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again you are trying to apply a limitation on the notability of events to evaluate the significance of the sources and your argument also goes against WP:NTEMP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - This website is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)  Struck sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:NWEB. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nominators rationale.BneiBrakPhone (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bang Bros. The topics are basically inseparable. bd2412  T 22:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.