Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men.com

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Men.com}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Men.com}})

This porn site is not notable under any criteria. It is not covered by any news sources and hardly even mentioned by Aylo themselves. Most of this article is just Men.com releases video, generates controversy or fame. The article's citations are also generally unreliable and not independent of the subject. Most of the websites are gay porn sites or LGBT forums which are not reliable and the gay porn websites could have been paid for a biased review given Aylo's power.

Note: I tried to PROD the article but an IP editor contested it. Now that I am unblocked I will move it to AFD. DotesConks (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, Organizations, and Europe. DotesConks (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sexuality and gender, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable gay porn site that also sounds like a toxic masculinity forum. An editor from Mars (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep And I would admonish editors to at least look at the references section of an article before calling a subject non-notable. There is WP:SIGCOV from Pink News, Queerty and several other LGBTQ+ publications currently in the article. The claim by the nominator that this website was not covered by news sources is factually incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Pink News is the only one listed as a RS by Cite Highlighter, the others are yellow, so of marginal notability. We basically have one good RS and several iffy ones. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'll be honest I'm not familiar with Cite Highlighter - I'm assuming it's a plugin - but it's giving you incorrect information. Queerty does not appear at WP:RSP and as such it is not "of marginal notability" nor is it an iffy RS. Merely one that hasn't had regular discussion at RS/N.Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Furthermore if your Cite Highlighter is calling CNN, Slate and Buzzfeed news of questionable reliability I'd question its usefulness as a tool. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::CNN is archived so it won't pick it up. The first three sources aren't directly about men.com, only briefly mentioning it. Queerly isn't a sourced used in the article. QueerMeNow isn't a RS.So, as I said, we only have one RS that is directly about this, the rest tangentially mention it. We still don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You misspelled Queerty which is why you missed it. It's Reference 15 presently. Look again. Simonm223 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I mean, it looks reliable, barely half a page of text. Not super extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Just not enough RS that talk about this at length. As my prior comment said, we only have brief mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:

  Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

  • The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.

  Sources

  1. {{cite journal |last=Tollini |first=Craig |date=2019-10-04 |title=How two holdouts went bareback: CockyBoys and Men.com's initial transition to producing videos without condoms |journal=Porn Studies |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=282–300 |doi=10.1080/23268743.2019.1602958 }}

     The abstract notes: "The current study focuses on the early transitions of CockyBoys and Men.com from producing only gay pornographic videos with condoms to producing some videos without condoms. These transitions follow the normalization of pornography without condoms noted in the literature, and their recentness allows for a ‘real-time’ analysis of how the studios marketed the videos without condoms, as well as the initial media coverage and feedback from viewers. ... I addressed these topics using data from the websites for each studio, as well as posts on gay pornography blogs. I describe and compare the different strategies employed by each studio, as well as the generally positive feedback for both studios and the different number of videos without condoms produced by each. I also provide possible explanations for these differences."

  2. {{cite book |last=Brennan |first=Joseph |date=2020 |chapter="I Think That's My Favorite Weapon in the Whole Batcave": Interrogating the Subversions of Men.com's Gay Superhero Porn Parodies |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4XoEEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA265 |title=Supersex: Sexuality, Fantasy, and the Superhero |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4XoEEAAAQBAJ |location=Austin, Texas |publisher=University of Texas Press |via=Google Books |pages=265–290 |isbn=978-1-4773-2160-7 |accessdate=2025-04-14 }}

     The book notes: "Men.com is the second most visited gay porn site in the world. Yet it actually consists of nine individual sites, each catering to a different niche. Among these is Super Gay Hero, which forms the case study here. Though inclusive of a range of parody texts-including parodies of Star Wars, Game of Thrones, Pirates of the Caribbean, and even the popular mobile game Pokémon Go-Super Gay Hero is, as its name suggests, especially keen on producing content parodying superhero ... Such high-end ambitions are not necessarily applicable to all gay porn superhero parody, but instead reflect Men.com's status as a popular (read: "mainstream") provider of gay porn. ... As I have observed elsewhere, Men.com's porn performers and stars are presented in a "rather monolithic" manner, conforming to "narrowly defined sex roles" and "privileged alignment of opposing positions (top/ bottom) and prototypes" that "connect action, power, and penetration with extraordinarily sized, masculine men." It is hardly surprising, therefore, that similar top/bottom dichotomies would be carried over into Men.com's parody texts, with the archetypal dominant-top construction generally reserved for the superheroes with the greatest perceivable masculine prowess. The carryover of such dichotomies suggests that Super Gay Hero replicates tried-and-tested gay porn conventions, rather than using parody to subvert them."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Men.com to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  :@Cunard 2 sources is not "enough coverage". Porn Studies specifically is dedicated to pornography. Of course it will cover men.com. Both websites have not received any news coverage. For the Book, I don't understand how that could be reliable or coverage by a notable source. Its literally a book that praises men.com for creating gay XXX parodies of films like Batman or Robinhood. DotesConks (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  ::[https://web.archive.org/web/20040213200033/http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/12/25/internet.domains.ap/index.html CNN]. The page should be rewritten, re-stubbed if you wish with the reliable sources alone, but the website is notable. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  :::@Tbhotch Please explain to me how 2 somewhat reliable sources justify the article being saved from deletion? I've watched many men.com videos and I don't see how its any different from any other gay porn site. DotesConks (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  ::::What you see/watch in your personal time is up to you, and honestly I have no idea why it is relevant. CNN specifically is about the website's domain price purchase. Porn Journal is a specialized journal. Brennan's article qualifies as reception that any entertainment topic requires for a comprehensive article. I am not the one who has to "explain" anything. It is up to the deletion requester to explain why the page has to be deleted. Your request reads "it is not notable under any criteria." By this, I assume you mean WP:WEBCRIT: "The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Three sources exist at least. And, two: "The website or content (bold mine) has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". The films, i.e., the content, has indeed received notable, well-known and independent awards, at least 5 GayVN Awards. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  :::::@Tbhotch But keyword: trivial. For both awards and sources, the sources are generally not notable in it of themselves and are also already searching and ranking for pornographic content, so it was an inevitably that it would be rated. DotesConks (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  ::::::Now if there was a source that was not primarily pornographic focused that covered it and wasn't just a random blog post or forum then I would have not nominated it for AFD. But in my time searching for Men.com sources, they almost always are pornographic forums, blog posts, or the sources you have described above. DotesConks (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  :::::::"The sources are generally not notable". CNN is notable, so is Porn Journal, and of course they are not trivial. The GayVN Awards are not trivial either. I'm already cleaning up the article with relevant sources so it doesn't look like the article was written by Zach from Str8UpGayPorn. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  ::::::::@Tbhotch Except the CNN article is literally just "Man sells men.com domain" and doesn't even name Aylo. It does not talk about the content on the site and was part of a more global coverage of the .com web domain. Porn Journal is notable but its trivial because its... a porn journal. It was an inevitably that Porn Journal would cover men.com, a gay porn site. DotesConks (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  :::::::::I don't know how Aylo is relevant in a 2003 article. I'm not going to reply further. I'm working on this already and I also decided that the article should be kept. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  ::::::Sources don't need to be notable. Just reliable. The closer should disregard that line of discussion. JFHJr (㊟) 02:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, per Cunard's finding. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Simonm223, Cunard, and Tbhotch. This needs additional sourcing that exists here in this discussion, and some basic rewriting. Nom likes to draft, so is perhaps open to empathy there. Those issues are not a reason to delete. This subject appears to meet WP:42. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep a consistently improve the article, it also contains reliable sources that meet W:GNG requirements Iban14mxl (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.