Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invidious: Difference between revisions

Invidious

Invidious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, non-primary coverage appears limited to tech blogs of dubious reliability and listicles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Dawnbails (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Invidious is backend of quite a few projects such as YouTube clients, Privacy redirects.Greatder —(talk) 04:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)'[reply]
• Keep Invidious is a valuable open-source project that is used by many people. As stated by another user, it is a frequent component of so-called privacy redirect plugins. These plugins typically consist of Quetre, Libreddit, Imginn, Nitter, ProxiTok, and Invidious. To state that this project is not notable is absurd. JoeBo82(talk)

Can you point to...any...coverage in a reputable tech magazine or academic journal? The best we've got right now is passing coverage in makeuseof.com [1], [2], a source described as unreliable to marginally reliable the one time it was brought to RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_326#Should_MakeUseOf.com_be_considered_a_reliable_source? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: @Rosguill: Because of the name, it is difficult to sort through unrelated search hits. Because of the purpose (downloads from YouTube, owned by Google), search results could be...suspect. These are not as big and "reliable" as NYTimes - List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times, but they are independent and arguably reputable, if not magazines or academic journals: Described at Free Software Foundation directory, written by Craig Topham, "an administrator and bureaucrat of the Free Software Directory",[3] Instructions and app written up at archlinux.org, known for reliable documentation (in some circles),[4][5] Windows apps described in Softpedia (has editor? team)[6][7] -- Yae4 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those links look like a mix of database entries and user-generated sources , neither of which typically contribute towards establishing notability. The Softpedia coverage appears to be mere-mentions unless I'm misunderstanding something. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know where the precise line is between user-generated unreliable like Wikipedia, versus a tightly controlled or curated more reliable wiki you can give some trust, like The Free Software Foundation and Arch Linux wikis, but I do know I've found info' at the latter two to solve problems. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Re MakeUseOf.com: At RSN in January 2021, I called it unreliable before Newslinger called it marginally reliable. If Newslinger called it marginally reliable, it's probably reliable enough. Compared with Youtube-dl (aka yt-dlp or others), Invidious is only one take-down notice away from fame and clearer wiki-notability. IMO, Wikipedia is a little worse without the article. WP:IGNORE. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mentioned on AlternativeTo [8], ProPrivacy [9] and several other tech sites e.g. [10] [11] [12]. The topic is notable (significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources) and the article is a net benefit to the reader. Certes (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be honest, I've read through the linked sources here and from Yae4 and I'm not actually sure which ones are intended to be the examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, I'm not sure myself; it's a matter of opinion. None of them alone would be enough to save the article but, in total, they may be. Certes (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are a lot of blogs and UGC sites that mention Invidious, but the most reliable thing I've found was a passing mention in LifeHacker (via Yahoo). So, no, I don't think that'd be enough for an article. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, i agree with all the reasons to keep this page. --XANA404 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — XANA404 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep There is nothing to gain by deletion. (AltheaCase (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  What? SWinxy (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on IAR. Also, while I don't think a cease-and-desist notice would make Invidious notable under our criteria (NOTNEWS and all that) I have to admit the timing is pretty funny Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for mentioning the news. Google is a Major Benefactor ($50,000+) to Wikipedia, just saying. Follow the money. Adding: It will be interesting to see whether Invidious can raise a Streisand effect like Youtube-dl did, without being a [self-redacted] of Microsoft GitHub -- Yae4 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Bruh, they're not going to inform the Cabal a week before they file a legal proceeding lol, Wikipedia is important but not that important. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP shows up on top of many searches, if there's an article. Coincidence? More coverage at AlternativeTo, FWIW. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  TIL AlternativeTo has a news section. How reliable would that be? SWinxy (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At a glance they say AlternativeTo is "user generated" but looks like they have a couple editors/screeners reviewing submissions. They knew enough to refer to GitHub issue[13] not self-hosted invidious mirror: "Our code is already mirrored on our gitea". -- Yae4 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find a single source which clearly passes GNG. I don't think any of the blogs listed above in this AfD count towards GNG - they're not sufficiently secondary enough. I'm also hoping the closer discounts some of the poor !votes above when closing, as we're discussing whether there's enough reliable secondary sourcing for this to have a stand-alone article, not about ignoring rules or general agreement. SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I should have cited RAPID instead then, given that (if I had at all) I probably would have !voted weak delete but for recent events. I'm not sure it will achieve GNG or NSOFT level of coverage, even so, but I'm inclined to at least wait until we see how this plays out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair, but we can always recreate it if notability becomes obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note to the closer - most of these keep !votes aren't well grounded in policy, and the sources that have been presented are still only blogs and not necessarily RS. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, mentions are not _significant_ coverage. Artem.G (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is nothing to gain by deletion of an Article on a topic which is increasing in relevance and public awareness Mattmill30 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The recent Louis Rossmann YouTube video cited by Mattmill30 would seem to be significant independent coverage by a notable expert, if given exception from WP:RSPYT. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Initiatives like Invidious are the only counterbalance to big tech's increasing impact on privacy. There is nothing on this page that is offensive, discriminatory, incites or victimizes criminal behavior. Google's take down order does not hold up under European law and thus can only apply to the US. Removing this page also means that everyone outside the US is affected by this measure. — 131.155.83.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC 06:48, June 13, 2023 (UTC).