Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinesexuality


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cinesexuality

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a concept that hasn't been developed by anyone other than its creator. Her book of the same name has gotten a few reviews, but that's the extent of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found some reviews for the work and I've added them to Patricia_MacCormack. I can also see where the concept has been in some books but it's almost always in books where MacCormack has been a contributor. If we can find more coverage for the book (I don't think that Media Culture could be usable as a RS) then we would probably be able to make an article for the book (which would be a way to include information on the concept itself). It's right at the cusp where we could probably argue for an article for the book. I can't find much for the coverage as a separate entity from the book, though. If all else fails, we could probably condense this into a small subsection's worth of material, merge it into the main article for MacCormack, and then redirect. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Largely agree with comments above. I searched perhaps 15 SERP pages and found a few references, added them, rewrote article based on them. My sense is the term cinesexuality is highly similar to cinephilia, not clear whether it has been picked up by mainstream film theorists, but it is getting some attention from some critics (included, so why I am giving it a 'weak keep'). What I had trouble writing was what, exactly, is the difference between cinesexuality and cinephilia? The problem is that the term, as MacCormack wants people to use it, is almost a springboard for MacCormack's rather (extensive) and somewhat obscure theorizing about poststructuralist film philosophy -- which can bring in WP:OR -- so to keep that out, I think the strategy should be to stick to the term itself, avoid getting sucked into trying to explain her theories. There is a danger of WP:NEOLOGISM here, but this depends on whether the term catches on (and it might -- not sure). My sense is to revisit this topic a year from now and see how it plays, see whether more film critics are using the term, and to keep a watchful eye on this article to keep the original research out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It's just a nonsense concept. If you really must, mention in Cinephillia and make this page a re-direct. Really and truly, Wikipedia is not a soap box for crank theories. Op47 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (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.