Talk:OnlyFans

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2025

The specifically requested edits are to the content in the article’s final paragraph, under 2nd level heading

Individual Creators

I initially intended to only request a simple edit to correct faulty syntax that is causing a citation parameter to appear in the body of the article. However, upon further review it appears that the information associated with this citation template fragment would require additional citation reference(s), as well as a correction to specific information to align with the cited sources, in order to be sufficient referenced. This new additional reference source is ultimately found to be sufficient in itself and can replace the previously used citation. Furthermore, as the new source’s title is virtually identical to the text being quoted with the previously cited source, the |quote= parameter is no longer necessary.

Change X to Y

For

X = . . . In September 2022, the Twitch streamer Amouranth told Business Insider that she was earning $1.5 million every month on the site and had grossed more than $33 million in total since joining in early 2020. |quote=Amouranth had recently been making around $1.5 million a month in OnlyFans revenues, she told Insider}}</ref> On 9 December 2022, YouTuber . . .

Y = . . . In September 2022, the Twitch streamer Amouranth told Business Insider that she was earning $1.5 million every month on the site and had grossed more than $27 million in total since joining in early 2020. On 9 December 2022, YouTuber . . .

22975dtay (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Request For Deletion Of The Entire Article

Wikipedia prides itself on being a comprehensive repository of human knowledge, the inclusion of an article about OnlyFans represents a fundamental contradiction with the website’s goals of being a traditional encyclopedia. The arguments against the inclusion of OnlyFans have three pillars: the lack of genuine encyclopedic notability, the insurmountable problems of verifiability and sources, and the fundamental contradiction of the website’s content with the family-friendly environment of Wikipedia’s editing interface.

1. The Lack of Genuine Notability

The fundamental policy of Wikipedia’s Notability Policy states that "Articles must be about topics that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." While it must be acknowledged that OnlyFans has received a tremendous amount of media coverage, it must also be recognized that such media coverage represents a fundamental contradiction with the concept of being a genuine encyclopedia.

The media coverage of OnlyFans represents sensationalist and ephemeral topics related to the pandemic economy, specific celebrity-related topics, and moral panic. The article itself represents less of an encyclopedia and more of a chronicle of business-related dramas. Wikipedia is not a news source; it is an encyclopedia. The fact that the article must constantly be updated with news of policy changes, payment processor issues, and creator-related topics represents the fact that the subject of OnlyFans represents a current event rather than a genuine article of knowledge worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

2. The Problem of Verifiability For the purposes of the platform, this means that the most important aspects of the site, such as the internal moderation, the algorithms, the revenue sharing, and the impact on the creators, are very difficult to verify using journalistic sources.

While journalistic sources might rely on anecdotal evidence, unverified statements made by the creators, or company press releases, the fact that the site is an adult platform means that many of the best sources for understanding the inner workings of the site, such as academic journals, are in their infancy or consider the subject too tangential for long-term academic study, which can take decades to mature. An encyclopedia article based on tech news cycle journalism and celebrity gossip columns is not based on a very solid foundation of fact.

3. The Encyclopedia Is Not a Platform for Promotion One of the most important roles that the Encyclopedia plays is the prevention of promotionalism. Regardless of the good or ill intentions of the editors, the fact of the article’s existence gives the platform a de facto SEO powerhouse. Due to the high domain authority of the site, the article will always be the first result for any searches related to the platform.

For a platform like OnlyFans, which relies on the acquisition of users, the fact of the article’s existence gives the platform an undeserved level of legitimacy. The article creates a self-referential paradox in which the notability of the subject is enhanced by the very article that claims only to represent it. Unlike the article for Ford or Microsoft, which is clearly an important company and whose very existence is relevant to the Encyclopedia, the article for OnlyFans is, in fact, a neutral-sounding landing page for a legitimate adult platform.

4. The Contradiction with the Editing Community Wikipedia has always had strict stances on content involving adult material, largely in the interest of providing a safe and welcoming space for people of all ages and backgrounds to contribute. The need to discuss the intricacies of the OnlyFans platform and its various business models, as well as the need to include links to the various profiles of adult content creators, creates a difficult conundrum for the Wikipedia community to navigate.

Whilst it is obvious that OnlyFans is a well-known website, the fact of the matter is that notability in the public eye is not the sole determining factor in whether or not something should be included in Wikipedia. The ephemeral nature of the website, the quality of the available sourcing, the inherent promotional quality of the platform, and the burden it places on the editing community all contribute to the fact that the OnlyFans platform should not be included in Wikipedia. The mission statement of Wikipedia is to record the sum of human knowledge, not to serve as a record of every website that captures the interest of the general public for the space of a news cycle.

(not ai written) ~2026-13065-84 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

If you genuinely think that this article should be deleted, not just for moral reasons, the correct venue is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 01:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to state two things (or three):

1. Like Aydoh8 said, if you wish for this article to be deleted, you are going to have to go to WP:AFD

2. This is likely AI generated.

3. You have a snowball's chance in hell of getting this article deleted. Might as well not try, for obvious reasons. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 01:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I think someone submitted it in the AfD discussion for deletion Sherkzx (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I took some action against this recent sock/meat-fest. DMacks (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

FY2024 figures available — proposed update

The article currently cites 2021 and 2023 financial figures. Fenix International filed FY2024 results with Companies House (financial year ending 30 November 2024). The numbers are publicly auditable and substantially different from what's in the article body:

• Gross fan payments: $7.22B (was $6.63B in 2023)
• Net revenue: $1.41B
• Pre-tax profit: $684M
• Creator accounts: 4.634M
• Fan accounts: 377.5M cumulative

Source: https://onlyfansstatistics.com/2024 (which traces each figure back to the underlying Companies House filing).

I'd propose updating the lead and the "Finances" section with these. Happy to do the edit if there's no objection.

~2026-28171-42 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That site was created today, doesn't appear to be a reliable source. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)