Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grief porn


 * 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   merge to Mourning sickness. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Grief porn

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:NOTDICDEF, article consists only of a definition and examples of usage. Phrase used in passing in three books but this article has little hope of expansion as there are no reliable sources that discuss and analyze the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  —Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, neologism, no evidence of any mainstream usage. Even if such evidence were forthcoming, the article at present is a dicdef, not encyclopedic in tone, and would require broader coverage to be suitable for Wikipedia.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One of those four citations mentioned above is a mistakenly generated optical character recognition translation, the book is from 1833 and the German word was Eisfporn.99.141.251.67 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've corrected the link. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the IP, absolutely no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, i think you've been misled, 10Pound. There are quite a few sources, none of them unreliable or unverifiable. I am not speaking about the book references. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge and Redirect. to Mourning sickness. E-mail, truthiness and hundreds of other neolopisms have articles on Wikipedia. As do many words. There is certainly a good article possible here - tying directly to the history of media, technology and journalism. It took me less than a minute to find several news stories and books. What we have is currently poorly written and under-cited. The neologism itself is new but the subject is certainly notable with hundreds of books focussing on how media focus on death. It may be more NPOV to find a better title like Media portrayals of tragic events. These are all WP:Problems that per WP:AFD should be addressed through regular editing instead of deletion. -- Banj e  b oi   22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is not a useful argument. Which of those sources discuss the subject as their topic? Those books for example, how do they contribute to the article past providing examples of usage? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that just because a term is a neologism doesn't mean a good article isn't possible. The subject of Media portrayals of tragic events itself is quite notable so several routes to improving this article exist with the most likely path involving a name change - ala "a neologism grief porn was coined in the 2000s to describe _____" - which would also not call for deleting but improving. Where to start? Here's several thousand Google scholar hits but these have both media and tragedy in the title. I'm sure tweking the search terms will pull many more possible sources. -- Banj e  b oi   23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather my point as well. Well put, Banj - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to userfy the article, and work on making it into "something else" at your leisure, please feel free to do so. However, a vague hunch that this might form part of a notable topic in the future is not a valid reason to keep the present article. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject itself flies past notability guidelines. Studies and books are regualrly produced on media issues involving death and tragedies. This is a no-brainer, find a NPOV title, move the article and restructure it accordingly mentioning grief porn with due weight. -- Banj e  b oi   11:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be out of line here Tim but isn't determining the possibility of improving an article the point of AfD? We should be here discussing weather this article can be saved or not, right? So doesn't the possibility of being able to save the article go straight to the heart of that argument? We shouldn't be here to delete unworthy stuff, we should be here to delete non-notable stuff. Padillah (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not out of line in the slightest, but unless Benjiboi changes his vote to Rename or Redirect and actually decides on a new name and topic, this discussion on things the article might be called in the future will remain entirely hypothetical. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, we have seven days to sort out if this article is encyclopedic in total or some usable parts. There seems little consensus to outright delete it and I now concur that merging it with Mourning sickness would serve this article and our readers best. This section can grow there and if needed can be rebirthed at a later date. -- Banj e  b oi   02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Grief porn seems related to the term "disaster pornography" and probably several similar terms. Disaster pornography is currently an imperfect (though understandable) redirect to Compassion fatigue. I suspect you could find sources that discuss and analyze the broader topic if you expand your search to include these terms as well; Slate, for example has one: http://www.slate.com/id/2112706/ about "disaster porn". I'm not an AFD regular, nor am I an article writer, so I'll leave the decision on whether to delete or expand or rename or merge somewhere to others. But I sort of suspect there's an article lurking around in there somewhere, even if the current one isn't it. Meh, maybe this is too wishy-washy to be helpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Schadenfreude could be a valid redirect target. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sort of related, but not the same. Schadenfreude is happiness at someone else's misfortune; like seeing an edit warrior and tendentious editor's article up at AFD. Grief porn is more like sharing in someone else's misfortune in an excessive, inappropriate, and generally creepy way, like feeling a compelling need to be the one to keep the Michael Jackson article up to date minute by minute on all the latest rumors you've heard online.  Like the redirect from Disaster pornography to Compassion fatigue, they're related ideas, but they're definitely not the same thing. I think Benjiboi's idea of Media portrayals of tragic events is kind of what I had in mind when I said I sort of suspect there's an article lurking around in there somewhere. Now, if I could only convince someone (not volunteering, I mean someone competent) to write it... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact is, it apparently has no common or consistent def and has been only mentioned on a handful of occasions. It probably means whatever the speaker says at any one time, this conflicting definition in the lead was brought up in discussion.99.141.251.67 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it when I see it :) . --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

* Delete: Disaster porn, grief porn, plane porn, car porn these are simply commonly meshed near-portmanteaus no different than calling every scandal a "gate" like Water-gate or such. One takes whatever has captured the attention at any moment and attaches "porn" to it. "Car Porn" has thousands of potential references - as for that matter does "plane porn" or any number of you name it - "porns". None of which are anything more than simple plays on the attached word as it relates to our porn like attachment to the given images. Border line even for a dictionary and not at all encyclopedic.99.141.251.67 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's an interesting, yet rather unsupported opinion, anon75. In point of fact, grief porn is utterly different from your superficial examples. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Some sources show the word being used, but none demonstrate nontrivial coverage of it, and there's nothing to show that there's any notable usage of the word. DreamGuy (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are a few notable bits about this term - what is being stated above is that the subject is certainly notable enough so an article on the subject which includes mention of this term would likely make more sense. What that article should be called is yet to be determined. -- Banj e  b oi   01:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Were you planning on striking that, anon? It's been pointed out that it was simply moved to archives, not removed at all. the correct link has been reinstated in the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

99.141.251.67 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL - Xeno found it and put it back in the article.Please be more careful in the future, anon75... - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

99.141.251.67 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's a red herring. the Internet Archive could be used to cite the original address if we felt the need. -- Banj e  b oi   11:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Used in the New York Times and other notable sources. Published in books.   D r e a m Focus  01:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to re-check your claim. It appears that the NYT's mention is from a readers comments99.141.251.67 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your place was to address that elsewhere, anon75. On a side note, is there some reason you are making your text smaller? Your use of it is somewhat distracting. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

99.141.251.67 (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of phrases have been used in newspapers and published in books, but since Wiki is not a dictionary, we don't want articles on bits and bobs or odds and ends. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reliable sources, published in books and discussed by notable, linked folk - it seems a no-brainer to keep. The only reason why this article hasn't been expanded further is that it had been bogged down in discussion overlong. there are over a dozen sources linked in article discussion that could be utilized in the article, as well as a likely ton if usable other citations throughout the net and academic sourcing.

Which is likely why porn-derivative articles like car-porn (mega usage), plane-porn and horticulture-porn don't exist, even though we have a substantial body of references from all media and academia. 99.141.251.67 (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, where is our policy page on neologisms? If you are referring to the guideline: "Avoid Neologisms", you might want to take several moments and review that guideline, anon75. From the very title of the guideline, the reason we are guided to avoid them is that they aren't really understood all that well; frankly, that seems directed to folk who have some trouble being able to use them. You shouldn't assume that simply because you do not seem to understand them doesn't mean some of us do not. As per the definition, the term is a neologism. I mean, you can keep comparing the term to car-porn or plane-porn, but you are only pointing out that you don't really understand the term, its meaning or its application as a neologism. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could provide just a few of these sources that discuss the term as their subject? Please note that I don't mean sources defining the phrase, giving its origin or providing examples of its usage, all of which might form parts of a dictionary entry, but not an encyclopaedia article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTADICT Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion has shifted to the subject of media portrayals of tragedy which is certainly notable. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for implying that I can't read Benji.....except I can. I know full well where the discussion has gone. I rendered my opinion. I really don't care if you like it or not. It may surprise you to know that you aren't in charge of directing the AfD discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you felt I implied anything and no, this is a discussion with no one "in charge" including myself, of course. Your rendered opinion is certainly yours to have and hold. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   14:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems like the sort of thing I'd expect to find in a dictionary. The sort of thing, it's not a phrase I've ever encountered anywhere but here. I think the article should be deleted. Teh Crafty One (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion has shifted to the subject itself. The term is a neologism so by definition many will never have heard it. However the subject of media portrayals of tragedy is certainly notable. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't quite get your meaning here. Teh Crafty One (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Grief porn, IMHO, is a borderline neologism as I see little doubt there is enough to build an article and likely the subject will be good naval-gazing material ... for the media who is always happy to report on themselves. The subject at its core - Media portrayal of tragedy - is certainly notable and as such it likely makes more sense to rename and move this article there and restructure this article accordingly. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   12:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Media portrayals of tragedy, you say? Still has a touch of the undergraduate, cultural studies whatsinames about it, but if changing my !vote to keep will minimise the rustling of taffeta then it's all for the best I suppose. These things should be more thoughtfully named in future. Grief pr0nz indeed. Teh Crafty One (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not change your vote just to try to make someone happy. You need an actual reason per the notability policy to vote keep, not just to "minimise the rustling of taffeta". DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So I'm voting to delete again? This is all getting very confuzzling. Sod it. Merge and be damned. Teh Crafty One (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Better title would be welcome; we do have Category:Media portrayal of AIDS, Category:Media portrayal of STDs and Media portrayal of lesbianism so y'know those seem to work. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   14:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. It's an obvious phenomenon with sufficient coverage to create an article. And if it's not, we'll AfD it again. It's not like we have a deadline. Padillah (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing like sufficient coverage here. GNG demands multiple reliable sources to give independent non-trivial coverage indicating why this should be considered notable enough to be an article. There's nothing like that here. We've got one garbage source making a garbage claim and then some passing mentions of the term here and there. The typical sources for confirming the notable existence of a word or phrase are all conspicuously silent on this term, which is more than enough evidence that it hasn't made it to the mainstream yet. DreamGuy (talk)
 * You haven't bothered to do a google search for the phrase, have you? If you had you would have found the same 633,000 hits I did. You would have found actual news articles using the term: and you would have found people using the term in blog replies: To try and put forward that there is not sufficient coverage is misinformed at best. To adhere to the outlook that this term hasn't made it to the mainstream yet is short-sighted. Padillah (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Padilah - there are about 630,000 Google results for the search term <EM>grief porn</EM> but only about 1000 for <EM>"grief porn"</EM>, i.e. the phrase as opposed to the two separate words. Just for the record. Barnabypage (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Before I make my point: Benjiboi, are you the one who added the strikethrough to Teh Crafty's post? If so, don't you find that a little arrogant? Deciding that someone else's post is irrelevant? Anyway, I believe we should delete the article called Grief porn. In my opinion, Media coverage of tragedy would be a great article to have, but the creation of that article is totally irrelevant to this article's AfD. Benjiboi, don't say that "the discussion has moved away from" Grief porn, because that's the article this AfD was created for, so that should be our focus. And in my opinion, there is no question that Grief porn is an unencylopedic, dictionary-style article with no hope whatsoever of becoming an encylopedic article, due simply to its nature. If someone is willing to create the article Media coverage of tragedy, that's great, kudos to them, it would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. However, the content of Grief porn wouldn't even necessarily be included in Media coverage of tragedy, and even if it was, the issue of whether or not it is appropriate in that article and how to deal with it will be up to the creator and editors of that article, not some unrelated consensus on an AfD page for a long-dead article. Our issue here is whether or not to delete Grief porn. I think we should, per WP:NOTADICT. Creating Media coverage of tragedy is very different from renaming or rescuing Grief porn because grief porn is only a small element of Media coverage of tragedy.  Neil   Clancy  14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you look carefully you'd see that the user struck through their own comment. And no, this discussion has moved a bit to asserting that the subject should focus on media portrayals and not solely on this one term. Certainly that would be relevant to this article. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mergeto Mourning sickness. Same mawkish phenomenon, as noted by Timesonline . (Dontcha just LOVE a good cry?) Elvis, Diana, Michael Jackson. The masses getting off with recreational grieving, replete with candles, piles of flowers, and teddy bears piled by fences, with journalists criticizing the sob-fest, and people getting angry that their orgiastic grief is held up to ridicule. Edison (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur, an excellent idea. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So Benjiboi, do you now wish to merge and redirect the Grief porn article to Mourning sickness? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mourning sickness. Hipocrite (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Neil Clancy - he makes just about every argument I could think of for removing this, and probably clearer than I would have. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, though. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Neil Clancy. Second choice merge to Mourning sickness. Orderinchaos 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mourning sickness, as per Edison, Hypocrite, etc. I creatd the article, and was unaware of similar phenomena. Were there nothing else like it, I would be hard pressed to find a good enough reason to delete - actually, I still don't, despite Neil's comments. However, similar behavior does exist, it should be merged. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All we need to concern ourselves with is if the subject satisfies the notability and verifiability guidelines. Both are satisfied by multiple reliable, third-party references, so the article should be kept, or at most merged to Mourning sickness per above. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go for the Merge to Mourning sickness - this kind of bogus emotional wankery has been well documented and it is no wonder that some terms for it have been coined by various commentators. Mourning sickness seems to be winning. If a better candidate emerges it can be redirected there.  pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mourning sickness, per creator and Edison, Hipocrite, et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - Mourning sickness is a well-cited article that is describing the same phenomenon, far better to move this information over there. --  At am a chat 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete we need an article on a term sort of used 3 times in opinion columns just about as much as we need an article on a PTA mom mentioned in a couple of human interest columns. As in, not at all. Wikipedia is not journalism... we really need much better sourcing than this to justify an article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - not sure how many times it has to be pointed out, but I am not going to get tired correcting the fallacy: the references are not "opinion columns". Nor are they "blogs". The citations that speak directly to the term are from rock-solid reliable, verifiable and notable sources. There are additional references in - again - reliable, verifiable and notable sources. That there is a paucity of sources that speak to the invention of the term is the only reason why merging seems the avenue to pursue. Sorry, if it seems like I am snapping at you, Chiliad; I guess I'm still pissed at the banned anon who set he ball rolling with this bloggy opinion bs. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  11:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Every source cited in the article is labeled as an opinion column or a blog. I don't understand what your argument for them not being opinion columns or blogs is... they're clearly labeled as such. As for other sources mentioned but not cited... 1 is a work of fiction (Ten Little Indians), 2 are reviews of that work - all just mention the term but don't explain it in any sort of depth. Then there's yet another casual mention by "Hippo Flicks", whatever that is. Casual mentions do not constitute non-trivial coverage. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is something of a moot point, since the consensus seems to be in favor of merging the article, which is probably a good compromise. However, in defense of the sources in the current article, the "blogs" are attached to The Guardian and The Times, two very notable papers. WP:RS gives an allowance to blogs that are on "the website of a major news organization" and "Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers". Your attack on the reliability of those sources is unfounded. --  At am a chat 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I say they were unreliable sources? You appear to be replying to an argument I didn't make. My problem is with using opinion pieces as the citation for objective claims, not about whether they're "reliable" sources or not. Glenn Beck's opinion on global warming has been expressed in reliable sources, but that doesn't mean we use his claims as the basis for supposedly objective claims in global warming articles. --Chiliad22 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous example. I think everyone would agree that there's a large difference between the type of source that is appropriate to back up a scientific claim and the type appropriate to discuss a cultural and media phenomenon. If a glen beck article was used to describe the politics surrounding global warming, it would be entirely appropriate.60.240.104.183 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So when he claims that global warming is a liberal conspiracy, it would be okay to use that as the basis for Global warming (liberal conspiracy)? I doubt it. And yet that's exactly what we're doing here... using opinion columns as the basis for the objective claim that some trend exists. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Mourning sickness, per Atama. GP could be included in mourning sickness with a redirect.  <B>Erikeltic</B>  ( Talk ) 12:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mourning sickness. It's a media buzzword but certainly not a neologism that was invented here.  Still kind of a stub article but makes a great candidate for merging with the very similar "mourning sickness". Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with Mourning Sickness. If it's deleted, the floral tribute leavers have won. Paul S (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion on news media coverage of tragedies has nothing to do with why I want this article deleted... and I don't think anyone here wants this deleted for those reasons. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FNORD. No, you're probably right, but I don't want to see the information vanish from WP. Paul S (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Upon reading Mourning sickness, it would appear that merging Grief porn into that article is the best course of action. I don't know how exactly that will be done, I would recommend placing a redirect at Grief porn pointing to Mourning sickness, and then giving the term "grief porn" passing mention in the article. I don't believe it deserves an entire section as I still think it is unecylopedic and rather non-notable per my earlier comments, but since I won't be the one doing the merging, I guess we'll just have to see what Arcayne or whoever merges the articles comes up with.  Neil   Clancy  20:31, 2 July 2009 (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.