Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Not editable

Discussion for deletion

Atomicstar (talkcontribs)

I posted a note on why this page has a cleanup tag about a month ago. It has been a month and I am not sure how the page can be improved. There is a lack of valid points.

  1. Sure that’s valid, since it’s reputation for being used for pornography causes some people to think OnlyFans is a porn site, but it is really used by SFW content creators too.
  2. Not really valid because it is the content creators who set the price (userbase related), and no one is forcing you to pay for content subscriptions.
  3. That is semi valid. But it isn’t unique to OnlyFans, as almost every website that hosts user created pornography faces issues with child sexual abuse material and involuntary pornography being posted on it. I’m not too sure how well their staff are doing responding to reports though.
  4. They already canceled that decision.
  5. It’s not really their fault that they sometimes may accept a fake ID for verification
  6. Sure that’s valid.
  7. Sure that’s valid
  8. This isn’t really their fault as these are risks to creating pornography in general. Also, it is the creator’s decision to post content beyond their comfort zone.

so removing the points I mentioned as being invalid, there are really only 4 points that remain, with only one (the one regarding fraud) being a strong point.

Raidarr (talkcontribs)

I agree that the page content and the page points are problematic. Both being because most articles tend to have a little more outside of just listing pointers, and the pointers themselves being a debatable mixed bag. I'd be inclined for removal or movement to someone's sandbox if they wish to take a personal effort to improve the page, given fraud in my estimation is a good reason to take a look.

If nobody else has thoughts on this by the new year I'm inclined to take it down.

Honestly, most of these points aren't really valid

Atomicstar (talkcontribs)

Disclaimer, I'm not an admin. However, I've noticed many of these points aren't really valid for RWW. This is as of the revision on 01:25, 25 November 2021.

1. I don't really see that as a bad quality. No one is forcing you to subscribe to someone. And creators can set their subscription price. 2. Ok, this is a valid point, especially if they aren't doing much to prevent illegal material such as child pornography. 3. It isn't really OF's fault that financial companies didn't want to do business with OF due to their reputation for being mostly used for pornography. 4. I don't really get what this is meaning. If you don't need to meet an age requirement, then why do children need to fake their age? Or did you mean it doesn't require verification with ID? Well, it is mostly because in most countries (excluding EU), age verification isn't legally required. 5. That has to do with userbase, which isn't allowed on RWW 6. Same as above 7. Again, no one is forcing you to subscribe to someone on OF. If you don't want to pay for porn, then stay with free porn websites. What it is saying is pretty much like "why would you pay for Netflix when you can watch clips for free".

In the criticism section, the third point isn't really valid as it is really the creator's fault for posting stuff beyond their comfort zone, and these are already risks of creating pornography.

Also @Keaton 4w75236748r743yr7, why is Template:Protected necessary? It isn't even protected yet, and if we ever do, we can just leave the protection request discussion in the talk page which someone can find if they are wondering why it needed to be protected.

Keaton 4w75236748r743yr7 (talkcontribs)

im trying my best

There are no older topics