Invidious: 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 ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors.   Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.  However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome.  Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.  Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} .  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). Comment: And now there is more significant independent coverage at Vice.com Motherboard. [14] -- Yae4 ( talk ) 22:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Surrounded by significant (and well-covered) controversy.  ― BlaueBlüte ( talk ) 16:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per SportingFlyer, I don't believe there is a compelling case why IAR should be used to override GNG in this case.  While Yae4 gets the closest, in my opinion I do not find any of the 'keep' arguments persuasive here in the face of the argument presented that GNG is not met.  (There are a large number of low-quality keep !votes which cite no policy at all...)  Daniel ( talk ) 03:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Going through the links provided there does not seem to be coverage in reliable secondary sources.  Almost every source is just a plain explanation of the product's features.  The Vice article is interesting, but on its own isn't enough to establish significant independent coverage.  CarringtonMist ( talk ) 11:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the last few days have seen a number of sources covering this software (see the most recent three references in the article).  It may be wise for delete ! voters to revisit their rationales at this point, since more sources exist now (and most, I claim, clear the bar).  jp × g 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Evaluation and discussion of the newly cited sources would be quite helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the Vice article is an ok start to a case for notability but collectively we're still far short from meeting WP:GNG .  I can see the logic behind IAR-ing user-generated and/or primary documentation for subjects like this which exist in a media ecosystem where people primarily communicate through these crowdsourced platforms, but I'm not sure I'm quite convinced by it without an explanation of why the usual UGC problems don't apply here.  signed, Rosguill talk 05:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Haven't translated yet, but here is Der_Spiegel with what looks like fairly significant coverage.  [15] -- Yae4 ( talk ) 17:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Vice and Der Spiegel articles, along with this TorrentFreak article and maybe some of the prior less reliable mentions, seem like a good start, and there may be more coverage of this topic in the near future. I found this article useful for getting a brief overview with links and resources on what seems like a relatively important topic in a niche technology area where reliable sources are less common. I do feel like at this point, especially given the recent controversy, there is a benefit to keeping this article, at least for now. – notwally ( talk ) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also saw TorrentFreak coverage, but had not done due diligence. They've been discussed at RSN (unclear consensus), and cited hundreds of times . -- Yae4 ( talk ) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Tutanota is a competitor in email services (is not impartial), and this has "blog" in the URL, but it looks like significant coverage from an independent (AFAIK) source, at least a little better than an average blog.  -- Yae4 ( talk ) 06:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I heard of Invidious today for the first time, which might prove non-notability as of now, but was happy to find the article on Wikipedia.   Yes, the article should be improved.   Yes, Invidious will have to gain notability.   However, if we delete it now it will be hard to resurrect it when it becomes notable.   Please let's keep it and improve it.  ale ( talk ) 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ghacks is how I found out about Invidious, then I saw it written about on other places, some of which others have already mentioned on here (AlternativeTo, Louis Rossmann's YouTube channel).  The fact that they recently received a take-down notice from YouTube makes it instantly more notable than it was before.  I think the page needs improving but we should keep it.  Themidget17 ( talk ) 05:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now.  Lightburst ( talk ) 14:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: So far we only have one editor making a strong case that GNG is met.   Everything else is on an IAR basis.   It is possible to build an encyclopedia article on numerous sources that don't count towards GNG by themselves, but "it's important" and "it's useful" aren't valid reasons to keep if WP:V is violated by the use of unreliable sources.   Re-listing because it appears that more sources have been and are being made available.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 00:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:GNG not met.  Keep arguments here seem lacking in substance.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the (post-listing) addition of dedicated coverage from Der Spiegel and Vice seems to push this comfortably over the line.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : @ 78.26 : I made no reference to IAR in my above comment.  I draw attention to this article in Der Spiegel , a very reputable international newspaper listed as such at RSP , and here in Vice , which has no conensus about reliability and bias, but whose coverage is pretty robustly held as conferring notability.  I think it is often quite trashy, but there is not any consensus that Vice is unreliable, or that coverage in it does not confer notability.  Both of these articles are in-depth coverage of the subject (i.e. about it exclusively) written by independent sources in non-specialty publications.  Moreover, there are other news sites here; TechRadar is mentioned in RSN archives as being "generally reliable".  I do not see that anybody has made an objection to these sources -- I don't like all of them either , but that isn't a deletion rationale.  Granted, many of the ! votes here were cast some weeks ago, before these sources existed; I would urge closers to consider this.  jp × g 08:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think Yae4 and I were the only people who explicitly referenced IAR.  Myself, I don't believe that V was ever really an issue with this article (the claims in the article seem well within the bounds of what we'd allow use of ABOUTSELF or reasonably competent SPS for), rather encyclopedicity and NPOV, and that'd be why my ! vote leaned more heavily on IAR than the consequences of the takedown notice.  If focusing on the latter two, I don't personally believe the coverage since then transformative (though it doesn't hurt) but in my opinion the issues weren't insurmountable in the first place.  I probably should have expanded on this in more detail in my original statement though.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep 1 2 Baratiiman ( talk ) 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Site has become notable since the listing thanks to the coverage from Vice, Der Spiegelm and TorrentFreak.  — python coder ( talk | contribs ) 20:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: keep