Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pokémon and pornography

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) at 09:36, 15 October 2023 (when are we getting AfD and pornography ? #rule34). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:36, 15 October 2023 by Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) (when are we getting AfD and pornography ? #rule34)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Pokémon and pornography

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be much that makes Pokémon porn a unique subject that deserves its own article. Remember Rule 34, if it exists, there is porn of it. Overwatch pornography at least has some sort of influence (whether that influence is good or bad is up to you), but this... really doesn't feel like something worth noting besides that it exists. Most of what the article discusses, furthermore, is typical pornography related things that really isn't exclusive to Pokémon (reddit communities, fanfics). The doujinshi incident might be okay to stay as an article though. NegativeMP1 09:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. NegativeMP1 09:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete It's mainly propped up on a few sources, and there's no indication of long term effects on most of the subjects involved. It's not a notable enough subject regarding the franchise as a whole, and the article feels like a coatrack as a result.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:GNG with multiple sources that give significant coverage to the topic of Pokémon porn, including this Vice article, this Destructoid article giving significant coverage to both erotic Pokémon fanfics and Pokémon porn, sources discussing Pokémon parodies as a general topic such as this one and this one (especially the former), and others. Skyshifter 12:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Added some academic mentions. Skyshifter 23:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with Skyshifter above. Other sources include:

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

- The porn search spike from Pokemon GO is actually already mentioned in there. A bigger problem with the article as a whole is there's no overlapping tie between these other than "it exists". The individual notable elements like Gardevoir and GO can be covered in their respective articles, but trying to squeeze them into one doesn't quite work. Even in Skyshifter's addition of the Sterling Destructoid bit, the fanfiction is barely mentioned (which is part for the course for how flimsy a lot of Sterling's early articles were).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  It's not only "the fanfiction", points 7. and 8. talk about erotic Pokémon fanfics and Pokémon porn respectively as general topics (especially point 8. much more than 7.), I think it counts well for GNG. Skyshifter 00:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Rolling Stone and Ask Men appear to be passing mentions; Ask Men might support GNG for Pornstar Go XXX Parody, but not for a general concept/genre article. International Business Times is redlisted as generally unreliable at WP:IBTIMES. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete One could apply Rule 34 to literally any topic, and it will exist. Existing doesn't mean it is notable, and a few websites making Poke-porn does not add up to a notable topic of "Pokémon and pornography". This is cruft, and synthesis as well. Zaathras (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Of course, there is Rule 34 of everything, and it wouldn't make sense to create "X and pornography" articles for everything. However, we have articles for notable examples of Rule 34, such as Overwatch and pornography and Clop (erotic fan art). Per my arguments above, Pokémon and pornography is another notable example. Skyshifter 23:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Redirect Just make a section about Pokémon porn on the rule 34 page and have this redirect there. There is no need for this topic to have its own page. LordEnma8 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect to Rule 34 per above. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable topic (notability isn't inherited). --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Nobody said it's inherited. Skyshifter 23:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep. The sources I see in the article, even if news, not academic, seem to be sufficient for SIGCOV. I would like to hear more about BEFORE done in Japanese. Was it done at all? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
If someone that speaks Japanese wants to do a source search they can, but I don't speak Japanese and was limited to doing BEFORE in English, in which I found nothing. NegativeMP1 00:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Piotrus I've searched through Japanese sources on my end when working on Gardevoir and found no particular reaction for the porn as a whole. I know this article's been compared to Overwatch and pornography above, but I feel there's a stark contrast between the two for notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am a main author of ja:ポケモン同人誌事件 and ja:ケモナー. It is safe to assume that there is no RS in Japanese dealing with this subject. Although press articles on the Pokémon doujinshi incident might be considered an exception, these articles focus only on the specific case and do not address the relationship of Pokémon and pornography comprehensively. --Nux-vomica 1007 (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I am a bit surprised but then those topics can be very under-researched (academic mentions cited seem to be mere passing mentions) or shunned by media. Nonetheless, I think there is sufficient coverage in English media (Vice, Yahoo, Daily Dot, Digital Spy, Cosmopolitan) to warrant keeping this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete per above, not a notable topic. I've reviewed the sources and I doubt GNG is legitimately satisfied. I've also reviewed the arguments in favor of keeping and found them to be weak at best. -FASTILY 07:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong keep. The fact that Pokémon and pornography has been analyzed by academic studies is a very strong indicative that it is perfectly encyclopedic. The article itself is sufficient, at worst. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Of the three scholarly sources, the first is paywalled so I can't check it, but the second mentioned it barely in passing, while the third is about hentai as a whole and not offering discussion on the subject itself (which was also a pain due to it being in French).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
N WP:SOURCEACCESS + N WP:NONENG. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
You appear to be missing the point, you're arguing the subject was analyzed in academic sources. Of the three in the article, only one I haven't checked and the other two were not analyzing it or even actively discussing it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete The Vice article is a solid basis, but GNG cannot be passed with a single source. The others are fluff, listicles, trivial mentions or not specifically about the concept. I don't think it's notable as a standalone topic, though it can certainly be integrated into a Cultural impact of Pokémon article if the creator wishes to take another crack at it from a more broad perspective. I just don't think that this specific subtopic is pageworthy and there isn't any single obvious target for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Weak Delete That articles cover taboo cultural subject matter shouldn't invalidate an article where its content establishes general notability. That said, the article is not good at maintaining focus on its subject matter and at times works as a loose repository of the various manifestations of Pokémon pornography. In the broad world of postgraduate scholarship, that the odd academic study has examined it as a phenomenon isn't a settled argument in itself. I think this article could have the potential to be self-evidently notable, but it would have to have sourced content that more clearly identifies a common thread to its community, general cultural impact, and analysis, rather than a set of loose references to various porn sites, incidents and memes related to the subject matter. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep As mentioned by a few users above, there have been multiple scholarly articles published focusing specifically on Pokemon rule34; the same cannot be said for the vast majority of other franchises regardless of how much pornographic content has been made for them. I feel this puts Pokemon r34 on a level of notability that merits more than just a generic r34 redirect. (This might be the weirdest topic I've ever contributed to) 134340Goat (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 02:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep - The sources seem to demonstrate the topic has sufficient sigcov to rise beyond the minimal threshold for inclusion; however like ZXCVBNM, I think the topic might be better covered as a section within a "Cultural impact of Pokémon" or "Pokémon fandom" article. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories: