Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outrage 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 keep. Consensus now leans towards this being notable enough for an article, and some content issues have been resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Outrage porn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that mention the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a number of reliable sources mentioning the subject and giving examples of it. The term was first used in The New York Times in 2009, was still being discussed in 2014, 2016. As they are discussing examples of the concept this goes beyond a pure WP:DICDEF. I did think about whether a merge with Clickbait might not be a better idea but they don't seem to be quite the same thing. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources are all op-eds, they are unreliable sources in this context. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's three books also referencing Kreider's definition in reasonable depth: 1 2 3. There's also this book that seems to be entirely about what it describes as "Outrage journalism" and "Outrage-based political media content" which appears to be an identical concept - however I don't have access to a complete copy of it though per WP:NEXIST all we need to know is that the sourcing likely exists. From what can be seen in the preview version available on Amazon, it offers a full definition of "Outrage journalism" and "outrage media". FOARP (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So improve the article. Come on mate, this is getting a bit tired to say the least. Bacondrum (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, what matters is showing that the references exist. The present state of the article is not the deciding point as there is no deadline on Wiki. If you're tired, have a nap - Wiki will still be there tomorrow. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, what matters is that it actually belongs here. As it stands this article is not an established terminology, or an encyclopedic subject and does not cite reliable sources. Improve it if you want. I am going to bed.
 * Sweet dreams. The present state of the article is not the deciding point at AFD. It is clearly possible for this article to contain a full definition, beyond a dictionary definition, of this term based on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and therefore it meets WP:GNG and does not fail WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary It's an obscure neologism, the page has no reliable sources, feel free to improve the article. Bacondrum (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Wikipedia is not a dictionary The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that mention the subject. All sources provided to date are random op-eds authored by people with no particular expertise in related fields. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've struck this !vote as it duplicates the nom which already counts as a "delete" !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I actually thought this was a more popular term than it is. I've heard it used to describe "(Ideology X) CRINGE compilation" style videos on Youtube, but it seems like the definition is still being developed and is much broader than that. It's really just slang/neologism right now and doesn't seem deserving of an article. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per FOARP. There are a number of books and papers directly about this term. This nomination is very similar to Articles for deletion/Call-out culture (2nd nomination), though the nominator wasn't quite so egregious about removing sources at this article before nominating for deletion. The term is related to many other articles like Milkshake Duck, online shaming, public shaming, cyberbullying, mobbing, mob justice, online boycott, and/or outrage culture and there is likely an argument to be made for a single article that describes each of these terms collectively instead of so many separate articles. But, until that merger happens, there is enough independent, reliable sources for outrage porn to be kept. In the most extreme case it could potentially be merged to one of the above links, but I don't think that is the appropriate outcome given the available sources. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 04:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did consider a merge to Moral panic but I'm not sure they're the same thing. Also a rename to "outrage media" or "outrage journalism" might be warranted - at least one of the references discusses these as being essentially the same phenomena and there seems to be at least some academic, qualitative and quantitative research around its prevalence (e.g., the work by Berry and Sobieraj at Tufts). FOARP (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to Keep though it may seem like synthesis of published material. I understand that there is still concern. If the community tends to delete, can a transwiki soft redirect to outrage_porn work?-- 94rain  Talk 15:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has sufficient WP:RS in the article to at least technically meet WP:GNG (which it does; I have added several more references to the article in this regard).  Might not be a major term, but the references show that it has remained in use right up the current date per Ocasio-Cortez Exploited as Clickbait and Outrage Porn Magnet (April 2019). Britishfinance (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now that I have also clicked on the find sources "books" and "scholar" tool, this is a solid "keep" with discussion on the founder and what it means in even more sources. Will try and add more of these; and credit to  and  who have also materially improved this article since nomination with additions. Britishfinance (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Britishfinance and FOARP, and WP:HEY. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 06:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed WP:HEY, I think the article is a lot better now. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Not going to get into the weeds of the sourcing with this one due to the nature of the topic, but my searches show an easy keep on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Britishfinance and searches reveal the notability of the subject.  Lubbad85   (☎) 22:52, 4 June 2019 (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.