Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family 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 delete. Sr13 03:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family porn

Family porn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparent neologism. John254 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has problems both with POV and verifiability. Many people would think that this is a reference to incest. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the one reference provided does not even put the words "family" and "porn" next to each other. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete has POV and unrefrenced. Oysterguitarist 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do not Delete Don't delete the article! Firstly, the article actually does have references. Moreover, do to the evolutionary nature of language and the organic growth of language it is important to document so called neologisms. For example, just this year, "Crunk" was added to Webster's dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amateur24 (talk • contribs).

— Amateur24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, its not notable, and supposedly created by another non notable adult entertainment company called Naughty America. The article is kind of funny to read thru though. T Rex | talk 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Irrelevant comment - LMAO! Guroadrunner 09:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no pictures (also there appear to be some questions about whether the term is legitimate). Cedars 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a joke, as the article admits itself - an "apocryphal expression".--Targeman 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT --Malcolmxl5 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• N Delete as a neologism. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete neologism and unattributed. Carlosguitar 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NEO --UntilMoraleImproves 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia's policy on neologisms, and the lack of attribution. Appears to be entirely original research, so can't be accepted here. Not notable anyway. Not verifiable, and although there are ghits for it, they're not exactly reliable sources. So this article can't stay here unless it meets these three criteria, which it fails entirely, so no reason for this content to stay. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "...and our act is called the aristocrats." 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I am actually quite shocked that this article is being flagged for deletion. The term family porn has come to be a very well known term in the Calgary Adult Entertainment Scene, and is not Wikipedia the garden where non-mainstream ideas, unattributed cultural movements,ever changing nomenclature are cultivated and exposed. is it not where the unverifiable become verified. Let us not forget that a little known term such as "Donkey Punch" was no more or less a Neologism and Unattributed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.104.33 (talk • contribs).

— 68.144.104.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do not Delete The article is well-written, it has references and is interesting. No doubt if there are articles on "Donkey Punch", "Facial" (sexual act) this article is just as worthy. Moreover, the article is concise and fun to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.73.70.240 (talk • contribs).

— 70.73.70.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do not Delete The article has ample references and opens the doors to further discussion. It is no ones place to decide whether or not any particular topic is "relevant.". Keep the article! Amateur24 11:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The author of this article seems to like the word "apocryphal" but doesn't know its meaning. I've just removed it from Donkey punch, but only because the article had survived an AfD. "Apocryphal" means "of dubious veracity; of questionable accuracy or truthfulness; of doubtful authenticity; in the nature of an urban legend" ([1]); probably not what you wanted to say! And no, Wikipedia is not meant to promote, expose, or cultivate anything (What Wikipedia is not). The sexual slang of the "Calgary Adult Entertainment Scene" does not belong here unless it becomes mainstream; and Wikipedia cannot be used as a means to help it become mainstream. --Targeman 11:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Every "Do not delete" comment has been added by the author of the article. The quantity of "Do not delete" comments does not reflect consensus. BassoProfundo 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've used the {{unsigned}} and {{spa}} tags as appropriate. Normally that's all you should need to do to flag these. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 19 July 2007 (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.