Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men.com

Men.com

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You misspelled Queerty which is why you missed it. It's Reference 15 presently. Look again. Simonm223 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it looks reliable, barely half a page of text. Not super extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. Tollini, Craig (2019-10-04). "How two holdouts went bareback: CockyBoys and Men.com's initial transition to producing videos without condoms". Porn Studies. 6 (3): 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. Brennan, Joseph (2020). ""I Think That's My Favorite Weapon in the Whole Batcave": Interrogating the Subversions of Men.com's Gay Superhero Porn Parodies". Supersex: Sexuality, Fantasy, and the Superhero. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. pp. 265–290. ISBN 978-1-4773-2160-7. Retrieved 2025-04-14 – via Google Books.
  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)[reply]