Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altporn


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.  

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:38Z 

Altporn

 * — (View AfD)

This is a neologistic term for a porn genre which may or may not exist, but I don't see a lot of evidence that those covered identify themselves under this label, and the article itself states that the definition is disputed even among them. I checked the sources, several of them do not mention the term at all, and others only allude to it. I'd say this fails WP:NEO and WP:V/WP:RS, also probably WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NEO. I think this is more of an advertisement for altporn.net. If we're going to have an article on this it should be called something like "Alternate pornography". Jayden54 17:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep – Altporn is a very important trend in contemporary pornography and strongly deserving of an article in Wikipedia. Numerous articles in the press about altporn are included as external links and references. (Just because you haven't heard the term before does not mean it isn't in wide use – try Googling it!) As for the term "altporn" rather than "alternative pornography", if you had bothered to read the talk page, you'd see that I posted a Google test demonstrating that "altporn" is the most commonly used label for this genre. I have to say, this whole AfD proposal is incredibly misguided. If you don't like the title, the first step is to propose a "Move", not a "Delete". If you think some of the links aren't suitable, delete them. (For the record, I added the Altporn.net link, because I felt it was relevant portal – I have no connection with that site.) If you think some of the facts in the article aren't supported by the references, then edit damn article, dispute it on the talk page, and/or put a cleanup tag on the article. Deleting the article as first recourse is totally inappropriate.  Full disclosure – while I did not originate this article, I have been primary editor of the article and am listed on the talk page as maintaining it. Iamcuriousblue 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So you say. But as the article makes clear, its definition is disouted and there doess not seem to be a good source for the neologism. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The precise definition and parameters of what constitutes altporn are disputed, not unlike the way the definition and parameters of any number of musical, film, and artistic genres are. The fact that altporn exists as a genre is not in dispute, however. I'll also point to this article which points out that Vivid and VCA, which are major porn production companies, are now getting into the altporn market – I don't think this genre would be getting financial backing if it wasn't seen as an important phenomenon. As for the title of the article itself, "altporn", "alternative pornography", "indie porn", etc are all more or less synonyms for this genre and the various terms (including "altporn") are all used in the various articles I have listed under "external links", however, the Google tests that I've pointed to on the Talk:Altporn page clearly point to "altporn" and "alt-porn" as by far the most commonly used term for this genre. "Altporn" is an established term for an established genre, albeit, a newly established genre. Iamcuriousblue 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that I have provided external links to articles on the altporn phenomemon from Bitch, Orange County Weekly, The Stranger, Adult Video News, American Sexuality, and Der Spiegel, which are all reliable hard-copy secondary source magazines and newspapers (albeit, non-academic sources). (True, these references should be better incorporated into the article, but that's not an argument for deletion.) Clearly, news sources attesting to the fact that altporn is real-world phenomenon can and have been provided. The only point of contention, really, is whether the article should carry the title of a relative neologism or not – this means there's legitimate debate as to whether or not to move the article, but I don't think a good case has been made at all for deleting it. Iamcuriousblue 23:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability and verifiability issues. Anomo 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As others have said, altporn has been written about by notable publications and simply because it suffers the same definitions problems as say many music genres is not sufficient justification for deleting it. I do think a debate about what to call the article on this genre of porn is valid and maybe the article name could be change but I don't think the existence of the altporn or whatever one chooses to call is debatable.--Cab88 10:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Very well-known genre, term widely used in the press. It usually appears as "alt-porn" or "alt.porn", however, and that's where most references will be found. Article has good sources, but there are plenty more for the taking. Google search results: "alt-porn" (with quotes and hyphen): 137,000 hits.  Media references include the Village Voice, AVN Magazine, The Phoenix, Wired News, NY Press, Nerve Magazine, and many more. --MCB 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.