Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimmick 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 of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 04:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gimmick porn

By the definition given in this article, practically any pornography is "gimmick porn", and the term is thus meaningless. Looks like original research. Delete. -- The Anome 08:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, there is also porn that doesn't have any specific theme but merely shows off porn stars. Therefore this concept is useful. — JIP | Talk 08:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The definition in the article is wrong? {{sofixit}} --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the definition needs to be narrowed. Gimmick porn should be porn that uses clichéd scenes like pizza delivery as an easy way to segue into a sex scene while still having some story. A similar one is the type with sex in certain situations that many viewers fantasize about, like school and the office. Just showing faces would be more like a filming style. Also, reality porn and rape porn should be in a separate category. -- Kjkolb 09:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - could do with a more encyclopedic title anyway. --MacRusgail 16:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - room to expand. Trollderella 18:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; term is not widely used, and the article is author's OR. MCB 18:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Carnildo 20:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.Gator1 21:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Regardless of what else this is, it is a neologism. Most of the very few Google hits are to Wikipedia mirrors, so it doesn't even have much currency. Denni☯ 02:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe it could be placed under Sexual fetishism. Or just merged into porn under category types of porn.—Gaff ^{ταλκ 02:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete Clear neologism per Denni's point. Dottore So 09:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obvious neologism. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:13, 18 October 2005 (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.